“In the academic world, where scholarship has displaced the spirit of revelation, it is argued that Isaiah could speak only of events pertaining to his own day and that his writings are to be so interpreted. This is the reason why the world so tenaciously argues for a second Isaiah—they refuse to acknowledge that Isaiah could have known of future events described in his writings. Among the household of faith the ceaseless tides of revealed truth waste away such sand-castle theology” (McConkie and Millet, Doctrinal Commentary, 1:227).