Why was the Holy Ghost never mentioned in the OT?

[Spaced_Out]

I was reading 1 Nephi chapter 11 and Nephi talks about the Holy Ghost a lot. Why was he never mentioned in the Old Testiment?

Because it wasn't available until the Day of Pentecost

The girt of the Holy Ghost was given from Adam onwards whenever there were PH holders on the earth. It is all over the Book of Mormon and old testament.
Only during the time that Jesus was in Palestine on the flesh was the gift not given, as Jesus was among them. During the same time period it was operational in the Americas among the Nephites. The HG still operated while Jesus was with his disciples, like it does today with converts - but the gift only comes with baptism and laying of hands for the HG. That is how the 12 Apostles got a testimony -as Jesus said unto them Flesh and Blood has not revealed it unto you.

[Spaced_Out]

Could the one hidden by the shadow of the Lord's hand also refer to the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost's identity is hidden after all.

Just like baptism is not spoken much in the old testament - does not mean it was hidden or not known - there are many references in the NT about baptism prior to Jesus including the HG.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/baptism
Baptism has always been practiced whenever the gospel of Jesus Christ has been on the earth and has been taught by men holding the holy priesthood who could administer the ordinances. Although there is some obscurity in the Bible as to the antiquity of baptism before the time of Jesus, from latter-day revelation it is clear that Adam was baptized (Moses 6:64–68) and that the patriarchs and prophets since his time have taught the gospel and administered the ordinances that pertain to the gospel. This includes both water baptism and the laying on of hands for the Holy Ghost (Moses 8:23–24). The Book of Mormon shows also that baptism was taught and practiced long before the coming of Jesus Christ (2 Ne. 31; Mosiah 18:8–17). In the New Testament, Paul speaks of the children of Israel being baptized by Moses “in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1–4). Noah and Abraham are spoken of as “preachers of righteousness,” which means they taught the gospel and administered its ordinances (Gal. 3:8; Heb. 4:1–2; 2 Pet. 2:5; Moses 8:23–24).

[Spaced_Out]

My most favourite scripture about the HG is in the OT, I must have a different set of scriptures that what your guys have in the US!!!!.

Isaiah 61:1,3
1 The aSpirit of the Lord bGod is upon me; because the Lord hath canointed me to dpreach egood tidings unto the fmeek; he hath sent me to gbind up the brokenhearted, to hproclaim iliberty to the jcaptives, and the opening of the kprison to them that are bound;

Well, if you names for them like aSpirit and bGod, and you do stuff like "canointing", yes, we probably do have a different set of scriptures...

Thanks for clearing that up - we do indeed read different scriptures hence all the confusion on this forum with very basic doctrine.

[Alaris]

Could the one hidden by the shadow of the Lord's hand also refer to the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost's identity is hidden after all.

Just like baptism is not spoken much in the old testament - does not mean it was hidden or not known - there are many references in the NT about baptism prior to Jesus including the HG.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/baptism
Baptism has always been practiced whenever the gospel of Jesus Christ has been on the earth and has been taught by men holding the holy priesthood who could administer the ordinances. Although there is some obscurity in the Bible as to the antiquity of baptism before the time of Jesus, from latter-day revelation it is clear that Adam was baptized (Moses 6:64–68) and that the patriarchs and prophets since his time have taught the gospel and administered the ordinances that pertain to the gospel. This includes both water baptism and the laying on of hands for the Holy Ghost (Moses 8:23–24). The Book of Mormon shows also that baptism was taught and practiced long before the coming of Jesus Christ (2 Ne. 31; Mosiah 18:8–17). In the New Testament, Paul speaks of the children of Israel being baptized by Moses “in the cloud and in the sea” (1 Cor. 10:1–4). Noah and Abraham are spoken of as “preachers of righteousness,” which means they taught the gospel and administered its ordinances (Gal. 3:8; Heb. 4:1–2; 2 Pet. 2:5; Moses 8:23–24).

Great point on baptism - my point was somewhat tangential about the identity of the Holy Ghost. Here's the point made a little clearer.

The Holy Ghost:

A. Has no formal name at all (Jehovah, Michael, Elohim) that we know of
B. Is not mentioned in the temple endowment
C. Is at the very least obscure in the Old Testament

I'm wondering if C has to do with his hidden identity and if that principle aligns with the Davidic Servant. I am starting to read the Book of Enoch. According to my studies, Enoch is the patriarch over the high priests - the order of the 144,000 - and I have tied his ministry directly to the Davidic Servant as he built ZION and showed the Davidic Servant how to do it - and Enoch did it with a handicap - a speech impediment. Each patriarch demonstrates how to overcome the law / challenge of their dominion. So, as I start to read the Book of Enoch I am excitedly thinking to myself, "I bet he prophesies about the end times servant." Sure enough, it's all over the place in the Book of Enoch, and these prophecies are so overt that it seems that Isaiah himself may have been a student of the Book of Enoch - building on those prophecies - or the same source of those prophecies gave them parallel / same information.

Anyway - circling back around to the original point. The names of all the seven "Holy One" angels are given to Enoch. The "Elect One" (Davidic Servant) who is "like" the holy ones does indeed have a name that is given to Enoch - who then specifically does not give the name in his book. The name is hidden. The Holy Ghost's identity is hidden. Coincidence? Maybe:

The Holy Ghost is now in a state of probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same or a similar course of things that the Son has.” (Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith, p. 245; Sabbath address, Nauvoo, 27 August 1843. Reported by Franklin D. Richards.)

The key word righteousness is aligned to the Davidic Servant all throughout Isaiah, Jeremiah, and in Moses 7:62. The Davidic Servant's promise is conditional until he overcomes whereupon he receives the eternal reward "to go no more out."

Revelation 3:12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

So those who have already overcome the sixth level cannot be the Holy Ghost whose probation is conditional as spoken by Joseph Smith. Moreover, if the Holy Ghost includes a mortal ministry - then could his mortal ministry be that of the Temporal Messiah? That would also explain why there are so many prophecies about this figure in all our standard works. Moroni quotes Isaiah 11 to Joseph Smith about the root and the rod. Could the rod - on whom there is laid much power - be the power of the Holy Ghost?

D&C 85:7 And it shall come to pass that I, the Lord God, will send one mighty and strong, holding the scepter of power in his hand, clothed with light for a covering, whose mouth shall utter words, eternal words; while his bowels shall be a fountain of truth, to set in order the house of God, and to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God;

Suddenly Isaiah 9:6 makes even more sense - Elgibbor - A name that KJV says "The Mighty God" that can also mean "The Mighty and Strong One" - perhaps it does mean both.

Revelation 12 would even make more sense - this heavenly birth mirrors the mortal birth of the Savior - both are divine and are for two separate divine births. One is a physical birth and one is spiritual. The physical birth of the Spiritual Savior - the spiritual birth of the Physical Savior. *sniff* it's beautiful.

The latter half of D&C 85:7: "to arrange by lot the inheritances of the saints whose names are found, and the names of their fathers, and of their children, enrolled in the book of the law of God"

This is an eternal assignment of eternal inheritances in the book of the law of God. The person making these assignments ... Would he not be a divine executor?

Executor:
a person or institution appointed by a testator to carry out the terms of their will.

The more I think about this the more so many other things start making sense. If the Davidic Servant is the Holy Ghost, then the Holy Ghost IS all over the Old Testament...hidden in prophecies about someone hidden by the Shadow of the Lord's hand!

[Thinker]

I was reading 1 Nephi chapter 11 and Nephi talks about the Holy Ghost a lot. Why was he never mentioned in the Old Testiment?

I assume we should ignore the JST material (i.e., the Book of Moses).

The Spirit is clearly present in the Old Testament.

For example, Numbers 11:26.
But there remained two of the men in the camp, the name of the one was Eldad, and the name of the other Medad: and the spirit rested upon them; and they were of them that were written, but went not out unto the tabernacle: and they prophesied in the camp.

Also, 2 Samuel 23:2.
The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.

I guess a related question is: how much do you differentiate between the Spirit and the Holy Ghost?

Two other thoughts.
1. The language of the Old Testament and New Testament are different so translating into English may account for "the Holy Ghost" not being in the Old Testament. You should find out the Greek phrase for the Holy Ghost and see if it appears in the LXX.
2. Deuteronomist revisions emphasized the supremacy of keeping the Law of Moses in religious life. A separate guide and source of truth undermines the structural religion and may have been eliminated from manuscripts, like a feminine deity was excised from the current Old Testament.

Interesting - where or how did you discover a feminine deity in OT? I’m genuinely interested.

I will readily admit I am influenced by Margaret Barker's work. For example:

"She must have been the one who appeared when the LORD came from Sinai, with his host of holy ones, and with an 'uncertain word' at his right hand (Deut. 33.2). The impossible consonants are 'sdt and, given that d and r are very similar in Hebrew, must once have been 'srt, Asherata. This must have been the LORD appearing with his holy ones and with the Queen, as in Revelation 19-21" (The Great High Priest, 2003, p. 236).

I have not yet read her book The Mother of the Lord, but may do so after I finish her commentaries on John's gospel and Revelation.

Felt the spirit as I read that - thank you for explaining.

[icarus]

The OP raises a good question.

The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. That alone should cause a study of each testament in context to the languages of origin, but I've also wondered about the use of the word "Jesus" in the BoM and Isaiah in the BoM which reflects origin from the KJV and not a translation from Hebrew. Could revised Egyptian be that close to the KJV? Not that I'm a biblical scholar of sufficient magnitude lol. Anyone know if the translation of the BoM to Hebrew uses the word "Jesus" or Yeshua?

Anyway, JS was familiar with the KJV which would satisfy me to some degree, however, I prefer interlinear translations for my studies.

[oneClimbs]

Why do some Christians call it the Holy Ghost and others the Holy Spirit?

In the New Testament both titles are used. The same Greek words are used for Ghost and Spirit, the only difference is in English because of the translators. Ghost and Spirit are both used for the Greek word pneúma which means wind or breath. In Hebrew the word is ruach and it means the exact same thing. So there's a nod to the OP, technically the Spirit is mentioned in both places, the difference is that in the Book of Mormon, prophets there have an understanding of how the Spirit works under the fulfilled law and new covenant Christ will bring. Jews still baptize today, they call it the Mikveh and the modern version is still incredibly synonymous with Christian baptism: http://oneclimbs.com/2015/08/07/mikveh- ... -in-water/

I'm sure that the ancient understanding was closer to what Nephi and other BofM people experienced. Remember, Lehi left Jerusalem after Josiah's reforms and after the Hebrews spent many years in Babylon. The writings of Zenos and Zenock were lost as were others and we have no idea how the scribes and keepers of the texts modified things along the way.

Even Lehi and Nephi's visions were radical for their time, Laman and Lemuel had a hard time accepting them and it seems that throughout Nephite culture, the people continually rejected the idea of a Messiah even though it was taught to them for generations. That belief seemed to slip away quickly among the Nephites so why not among the Jews? Coincidence? I don't believe so, remember who the enemy is.

I've done some research into the titles for the Holy Spirit as mentioned in the Book of Mormon. There are many different titles used and how they are used differs but I've found some interesting patterns. I think I have a long way to still go on it but there are a few things I can say thus far. I focused on five particular terms: "Holy Ghost, The Spirit, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of God, Holy Spirit." Now "Spirit of the Lord" or "Spirit of God" may not always be referring to the Godhead member, I still have more work to do there.

What I did was analyze the use of these terms in the order they appear in the Book of Mormon from 1 Nephi to Moroni and then from Mosiah to Enos/Words of Mormon which approximates the order in which Joseph Smith translated the rest of the Book of Mormon. After the loss of the 116 pages, he started around Mosiah and then went on through Moroni, then 1 Nephi to Enos and probably Words of Mormon or something close to that.

If you look at the actual order of translation you only see the term Holy Ghost used from Mosiah, Alma and Helaman (the largest chunk of the book) eight times. Then, after this, we see an explosion of the phrase used 26 times in 3 Nephi alone and then 57 times in total all the way through the rest of the books the biggest contributors being 1&2 Nephi.

Mosiah: 0
Alma: 8
Helaman: 0
3 Nephi: 26
4 Nephi 1: 2
Mormon: 3
Ether: 4
Moroni: 15
1 Nephi: 8
2 Nephi: 15
Jacob: 4
Enos: 0
Words of Mormon: 0

The term Holy Spirit is used sparsely but is present at least once in every book from 1 Nephi to Helaman but then it isn't used again until Moroni uses it once. The Book of Alma uses all five terms collectively the heaviest out of all books, but it is the biggest so there's that.

The term "Holy Ghost" is the most dominant form used in the Book of Mormon, here are the breakdowns:

Holy Ghost: 85
The Spirit: 51
Spirit of the Lord: 37
Spirit of God: 20
Holy Spirit: 15

I think a big chunk of the "Holy Ghost" occurrences in 3 Nephi are related to the "New Testament" scriptures found there that Jesus quotes. I don't think this is surprising. There is a profound richnes to the titles and mentions of the Spirit in the Book of Mormon. So in the compiled final draft of the Book of Mormon the beginning and the end are heavy with the title "Holy Ghost."

Personally, I believe this is an artifact of Joseph's influence on the translation. We find sparse usage in the thickest portion of the Book of Mormon or those parts that were translated first and then there's an explosion and that term appears more preferred after Christ's preaching. I think it is possible that Joseph favored this title more after 3 Nephi and used it more consistently until the end of the Book of Mormon and through 1 Nephi back up to where the plates of Nephi meet up with the abridgment.

"Holy Spirit" is the least popular phrase and it is notably absent from 3 Nephi - Ether. Anyway, there is a lot more work to do, I don't know when I'll have time to get to it all, I kind of do a little here and a little there. My intent is to understand how these titles are used in the Book of Mormon and if there is any pattern. This is tricky because we hear Joseph's voice in the Book of Mormon along with Mormon, Moroni, Nephi, Jacob, and others. I want to look at this through the context of all the authors first and then see if there is an overarching influence from Joseph Smith as the translator or if he was able to maintain the title choices of the original authors.

There is no difference between ghost and spirit in the Old and New Testament, there aren't two different terms from what I have been able to find out. So in this sense, it would be odd for the Hebrew speaking population of Nephites to use anything other than "ruach hakodesh" which is "Holy Spirit" in Hebrew. That would mean that the term should be consistent throughout the Book of Mormon, we wouldn't see "ghost" and "spirit."

This is why I think Joseph's influence on the text shows through. I personally believe that the plates were translated through the lens of his mind and that translation bears the marks of his limited capacities and confines of his language. I don't believe the entire text was simply dictated. Note that he made several minor tweaks to the text after the translation for clarification, etc. If it was perfect, this would not need to be done. I don't find this troubling at all, I've often found it difficult to put spiritual promptings and ideas into words, I can't imagine trying that with a foreign language from a foreign culture.

Well, I did it again, another long diatribe. I apologize and I don't know if any of this is helpful but please do your own research, I'm sure there are many flaws in what I have shared but I am unaware of any.

[oneClimbs]

The OP raises a good question.

The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. That alone should cause a study of each testament in context to the languages of origin, but I've also wondered about the use of the word "Jesus" in the BoM and Isaiah in the BoM which reflects origin from the KJV and not a translation from Hebrew. Could revised Egyptian be that close to the KJV? Not that I'm a biblical scholar of sufficient magnitude lol. Anyone know if the translation of the BoM to Hebrew uses the word "Jesus" or Yeshua?

Anyway, JS was familiar with the KJV which would satisfy me to some degree, however, I prefer interlinear translations for my studies.

It seems that Joseph chose words that most accurately described the ideas on the plates. Remember it was not translated the same way we would translate something, this was a different process, something that the word "translate" fails to describe. It seems that where the text was sufficiently similar to the KJV, that was used.

So think about this, if he was really attempting to perpetuate a fraud, why would he have many word-for-word duplications? You are claiming to be translating a more authentic record, you can have it say whatever you want and contain any idea you want, you are clearly a convincing writer. He could have worked in so many other doctrines or ideas but that doesn't happen. I think that a possible explanation is found in one of the missions of the Book of Mormon, it exists to establish "the truth of the first," the Bible. It couldn't very well do that if it was wildly different and caused people to doubt it's accuracy. I think the Book of Mormon has a good balance of its own doctrines but then nods to the Bible where possible to support it as another witness.

We do see some divergence from this in certain parts of the text. One I discovered was in 3 Nephi where Jesus is quoting Isaiah virtually word-for-word from the KJV in ch 16 but then after he heals the people, institutes the sacrament, ordains apostles, and blesses the children, he starts quoting Isaiah where he left off, but the words are different! This is pretty interesting if you ask me. Alma does something similar but I cannot recall the references at the moment. http://oneclimbs.com/2015/11/16/fluidity-of-scripture/

Would it be better if we had Jesus' Hebrew name consistently used in all of scripture? Maybe. But right now it is consistently used in the form of "Jesus" and I'd rather there be a uniformity. It says "Jesus" and the novice reader can open up the Book of Mormon and not be confused by it saying "Yeshua" and have just one more stumbling block.

[Sirocco]

Answers it all quite well, thank you!

[LukeAir2008]

The Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Old Testament in that exact form three times.

Psalm 51:11 – “take not Thy holy spirit from me”
Isaiah 63:10 – “they rebelled and vexed His holy spirit”
Isaiah 63:11 – “where is He that put His holy spirit within him?”

It’s a translation issue. The KJV translators were translating from the Greek in the NT which is ‘pneumati’ (Spirit ) and ‘hagio’ (Holy) and from Hebrew in the OT which is ‘ruah’ (Spirit) and ‘qedosh’ (Holy). Usually in the Old Testament the Holy Ghost is described as ‘ruah Elohim’ which the KJV translators rendered as the ‘Spirit of God’ rather than the ‘Spirit which is God’.

Nothing in the Old Testament, New Testament or Book of Mormon was ever actually spoken by Jesus, the Apostles or the Prophets. They never spoke English. What we have is just an approximation of what was said.

[onefour1]

Try searching for "Spirit of God". Here are some samples:

2 Chronicles 24:20

20 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the Lord, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you.


Exodus 31:3

3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship,


1 Samuel 19:20,23

20 And Saul sent messengers to take David: and when they saw the company of the aprophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed over them, the Spirit of God was upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied.

...


Ezekiel 11:24

24 ¶ Afterwards the spirit took me up, and brought me in a vision by the Spirit of God into Chaldea, to them of the captivity. So the vision that I had seen went up from me.


Numbers 24:2

2 And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding in his tents according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him.


Job 33:4

4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.


Genesis 1:2-4

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

...


1 Samuel 10:10

10 And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them.


Job 27:3,5

3 All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;

...


2 Chronicles 15:1

1 And the Spirit of God came upon Azariah the son of Oded:

[icarus]

The OP raises a good question.

The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. That alone should cause a study of each testament in context to the languages of origin, but I've also wondered about the use of the word "Jesus" in the BoM and Isaiah in the BoM which reflects origin from the KJV and not a translation from Hebrew. Could revised Egyptian be that close to the KJV? Not that I'm a biblical scholar of sufficient magnitude lol. Anyone know if the translation of the BoM to Hebrew uses the word "Jesus" or Yeshua?

Anyway, JS was familiar with the KJV which would satisfy me to some degree, however, I prefer interlinear translations for my studies.

It seems that Joseph chose words that most accurately described the ideas on the plates. Remember it was not translated the same way we would translate something, this was a different process, something that the word "translate" fails to describe. It seems that where the text was sufficiently similar to the KJV, that was used.

So think about this, if he was really attempting to perpetuate a fraud, why would he have many word-for-word duplications? You are claiming to be translating a more authentic record, you can have it say whatever you want and contain any idea you want, you are clearly a convincing writer. He could have worked in so many other doctrines or ideas but that doesn't happen. I think that a possible explanation is found in one of the missions of the Book of Mormon, it exists to establish "the truth of the first," the Bible. It couldn't very well do that if it was wildly different and caused people to doubt it's accuracy. I think the Book of Mormon has a good balance of its own doctrines but then nods to the Bible where possible to support it as another witness.

We do see some divergence from this in certain parts of the text. One I discovered was in 3 Nephi where Jesus is quoting Isaiah virtually word-for-word from the KJV in ch 16 but then after he heals the people, institutes the sacrament, ordains apostles, and blesses the children, he starts quoting Isaiah where he left off, but the words are different! This is pretty interesting if you ask me. Alma does something similar but I cannot recall the references at the moment. http://oneclimbs.com/2015/11/16/fluidity-of-scripture/

Would it be better if we had Jesus' Hebrew name consistently used in all of scripture? Maybe. But right now it is consistently used in the form of "Jesus" and I'd rather there be a uniformity. It says "Jesus" and the novice reader can open up the Book of Mormon and not be confused by it saying "Yeshua" and have just one more stumbling block.

What I'd give to be able to talk with JS. I don't believe the BoM is a hoax or that JS was perpetuating a fraud. I do believe that the Christian 'thoughts' that were cultivated from the time of Constantine caused great damage to understanding and leaked into the BoM. Never-the-less I love the fullness of the gospel that is contained in the BoM. Words such as elohiem, Yaw, Yehova, the un-translated Alef/Tav to name just a few, are 'painted over', which is why I like the interlinear translations. But this is all just my opinion.

The reference in 3 Nephi 16 sounds interesting and I'll have to take a look at it. Thanks.

[Alaris]

The OP raises a good question.

The OT was written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. That alone should cause a study of each testament in context to the languages of origin, but I've also wondered about the use of the word "Jesus" in the BoM and Isaiah in the BoM which reflects origin from the KJV and not a translation from Hebrew. Could revised Egyptian be that close to the KJV? Not that I'm a biblical scholar of sufficient magnitude lol. Anyone know if the translation of the BoM to Hebrew uses the word "Jesus" or Yeshua?

Anyway, JS was familiar with the KJV which would satisfy me to some degree, however, I prefer interlinear translations for my studies.

It seems that Joseph chose words that most accurately described the ideas on the plates. Remember it was not translated the same way we would translate something, this was a different process, something that the word "translate" fails to describe. It seems that where the text was sufficiently similar to the KJV, that was used.

So think about this, if he was really attempting to perpetuate a fraud, why would he have many word-for-word duplications? You are claiming to be translating a more authentic record, you can have it say whatever you want and contain any idea you want, you are clearly a convincing writer. He could have worked in so many other doctrines or ideas but that doesn't happen. I think that a possible explanation is found in one of the missions of the Book of Mormon, it exists to establish "the truth of the first," the Bible. It couldn't very well do that if it was wildly different and caused people to doubt it's accuracy. I think the Book of Mormon has a good balance of its own doctrines but then nods to the Bible where possible to support it as another witness.

We do see some divergence from this in certain parts of the text. One I discovered was in 3 Nephi where Jesus is quoting Isaiah virtually word-for-word from the KJV in ch 16 but then after he heals the people, institutes the sacrament, ordains apostles, and blesses the children, he starts quoting Isaiah where he left off, but the words are different! This is pretty interesting if you ask me. Alma does something similar but I cannot recall the references at the moment. http://oneclimbs.com/2015/11/16/fluidity-of-scripture/

Would it be better if we had Jesus' Hebrew name consistently used in all of scripture? Maybe. But right now it is consistently used in the form of "Jesus" and I'd rather there be a uniformity. It says "Jesus" and the novice reader can open up the Book of Mormon and not be confused by it saying "Yeshua" and have just one more stumbling block.

What I'd give to be able to talk with JS. I don't believe the BoM is a hoax or that JS was perpetuating a fraud. I do believe that the Christian 'thoughts' that were cultivated from the time of Constantine caused great damage to understanding and leaked into the BoM. Never-the-less I love the fullness of the gospel that is contained in the BoM. Words such as elohiem, Yaw, Yehova, the un-translated Alef/Tav to name just a few, are 'painted over', which is why I like the interlinear translations. But this is all just my opinion.

The reference in 3 Nephi 16 sounds interesting and I'll have to take a look at it. Thanks.

Do you mind expounding a bit on this? (Bolded text)

[onefour1]

It is interesting that when Moses brought the children of Israel out into the wilderness they were being prepared to enter the presence of God. However, the people rejected this and according to D&C 84 the Holy Priesthood (Melchizedek Priesthood) was taken out of their midst and they were left with only the Aaronic Priesthood.

Doctrine and Covenants 84:23-26
23 Now this Moses plainly taught to the children of Israel in the wilderness, and sought diligently to sanctify his people that they might behold the face of God;
24 But they hardened their hearts and could not endure his presence; therefore, the Lord in his wrath, for his anger was kindled against them, swore that they should not enter into his rest while in the wilderness, which rest is the fulness of his glory.
25 Therefore, he took Moses out of their midst, and the Holy Priesthood also;
26 And the lesser priesthood continued, which priesthood holdeth the key of the ministering of angels and the preparatory gospel;

So the people as a whole did not enjoy the benefits of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Prophets of the Lord likely received the priesthood but the people as a whole were without this blessing in their life. One of the ordinances of the Melchizedek Priesthood is the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. The people, without the gift of the Holy Ghost, were given the law of Moses with all its strict laws and ordinances. They were without the gift of the Holy Ghost until John:

27 Which gospel is the gospel of repentance and of baptism, and the remission of sins, and the law of carnal commandments, which the Lord in his wrath caused to continue with the house of Aaron among the children of Israel until John, whom God raised up, being filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother’s womb.

The children of Israel were primarily guided by the law written on tablets of stone. However, it was taught by Paul that the law is being written on the fleshy tablets of the heart and not on stone in his day. This would be due to receiving the blessing of the Melchizedek Priesthood and enjoying the ordinance of the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

2 Corinthians 3:3,6
3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
...
6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.