inquirer_Jn1717

no kidding ;-) ...now seriously, what do you think that they think?

open question to all: Why do you think protestant Christians (and even Catholics for that matter) do not see any reason to perform proxy baptisms for the dead? What is their rationale?

WillowTheWisp: Thank-you for pushing me to look at this chapter even closer. It turned out to be a rich feast and with a second pass my understanding is clearer—in fact I found I was mistaken on several points. Here I am calling people to diligent study of the Scripture when I myself was glossing over things! And you called me on in, LOL! The Bible kicks my butt, it reads me, not the other way around. So here is an attempt to address things in specifics as concisely as possible. I love getting into the word like this! I posted only the scripture references with my notes for the sake of saving space, so whoever is reading this may want to grab their Bible. Isa 29:1… With the reference to David and then Mount Zion later in v8, the city in question is Jerusalem itself. “Ariel” could mean ‘lion of God,’ ‘hero,’ or even ‘alter-hearth.’ In light v2, “she shall be to me like an Ariel,” the third option might make the most sense, picturing Jerusalem burning like an alter. There’s some poetic word-play going on here here but I don’t get it yet. Isa 29:2-4… When I first read this I took it to mean that Jerusalem would be destroyed, but I was way off! Ariel will be “distressed” not destroyed, “lamenting” not dying. With the help of a commentary or two I realized that to be “brought low” is to be humiliated. From a prostrate position, faces in the dirt, their “speech will be bowed down,” humble. They will whisper their prayers, sounding like ghosts (whenever a medium—one that hath a familiar spirit—pretended to or actually did channel a ghost they muttered with a very weak voice). We should not take it to mean that the words are coming up through the ground by being dug up, but from the lips of people on their knees praying for their lives. All that said, if we say that in this passage is a reference to the BoM, then are we describing it as sounding like “one that hath a familiar spirit?” If the BoM contains the Gospel it ought to be quite clear, not whispering. If I were LDS, I would not apply this verse to my BoM. Isa 29:5-8… After realizing that Jerusalem will not be destroyed in the fulfillment of this prophecy, I am more convinced that it refers to the battle of Gog and Magog prophesied in detail by Ezekiel (38-39). The outcome of the battle is the same in both cases: Jerusalem is spared and the armies surrounding it are destroyed by an act of God. Isa 29:9-12… This is describing how God has inflicted a spiritual blindness to the truth on the people for their unbelief/insincerity (described in v13), and it has affected just about everyone from the top down. Isaiah knows that when the people hear Chapter 29 they will shrug it off. When the learned man (priest, scribe, prophet, seer, etc.) sees it he will dismiss it saying that it must contain some spiritual meaning that he cannot unlock, and the unlearned couldn’t read it to begin with. Again, if I were LDS, I would not say that the “unlearned man” is Joseph Smith himself because then I would also be saying that he was spiritually blind and couldn’t read. We all know that he could actually read just fine in English (and German?) with or without much formal training. I don’t think any LDS would want to describe their founder in these negative terms. Isa 29:13-24… This portion is now plainly messianic. The references to the wicked being “cut off,” the deaf and blind (whether spiritual or physical, not sure, maybe both) being healed, the meek and poor praising God all help to give it away. But if you want a flashing neon sign, look to v22 where “Jacob shall no more be ashamed.” It is describing an ideal future for the Israelites, the physical descendents of Jacob, where they worship God wholeheartedly and live in peace. This of course is the Kingdom of God that they were waiting for, or as we would know it: the Millennial Kingdom. This particular revelation, and many like it, is intended for the children of Jacob, so I see no way that this would refer at all to the LDS Restoration of the Gospel. Yes guidance by the Holy Spirit in studying scripture is vital, and I do not want to discourage anyone from tapping into that source of wisdom, but as posted earlier we will go wrong if we rely on only the Spirit or only Study because we have no built-in way of telling what ideas come from us and what ideas come from God, not to mention our intellects are faulty. I would argue that the Holy Spirit would not add any deeper meaning to the original meaning intended for the original hearers. So is there nothing for us here? Of course not, if there is one big thing here for us it is hope of a glorious future, because what is good for Israel will turn out for good for all the faithful.

The main point/critique I want to make is that you guys are applying meaning to this passage that simply is not there. The passage is about the fall and restoration of the nation of Israel, not the founding of the LDS Church. Why do I bother to harp on this? Because I do not want you to lead yourselves into worse error by relying on this sort of interpretation method. It seems as though when you read the passage you noticed a few parallels with LDS history and soon took the next leap into saying that the text was infact a prophecy concerning the LDS Church. But you did not take the time to study the plain meaning of the prophecy in its context. If we are this reckless in our handling of scripture then we do our Lord a disservice and can soon find ourselves making the Bible say whatever we want. For example: Did you know that in the parable of the good samaritan the two coins he gives the innkeeper represent baptism and communion as the prerequisites to enter the church (the inn)? You didn't? Oh come'on, and the beaten man is obviously the typical sinner, the samaritan is actually a preist and so on...can't you see it? Isn't so plain!?... ...But Jesus wasn't teaching about church recruiting was He? No, it was about being a good nieghbor, plain and simple. Do you see how this sort of thing could be dangerous? Now yes, the Holy Spirit does reveal specific things to us through the word: lessons for life, guidance in decision making, conviction of sin, inspiration to do something great, etc. But the Holy Spirit won't take in monster's living space.

Yes, you could say that the sealed book that no can read or look into serves as a metaphor for the actual vision/prophecy that Isaiah was receiving and writing down right then. the sealed book in v11 has nothing to with any future portions of the BoM.

Yes the prophecy is about Christ, there is only one messiah, but there was a time when some Jews actually were looking for two messiahs: a priest and a king. Understandable since the messiah is really both. Anyhoo... Now technically Christ Himself is not mentioned here, but the passage is messianic just the same.

What are these words actually saying? I think you have mis-read them to mean: "Dear Joseph, if you manage to live till you're 85 then I'll come and visit you for a personal chat." But it is absurd, I think, to intimate that the second coming or even a secret visit to earth by Jesus would hinge on anybody's life expectancy, or to say that the whole thing was called off because Joseph Smith died at 34(?). Instead, the meaning is more like: "I am coming in [1800 whenever] and if you live that long you'll get to see it." Grammatically speaking, this passage describes when the second coming will happen, regardless of Joseph Smith's life span. However, I would believe that any guess on setting a date is automatically wrong and Jesus would never cave in to anyone by ever giving any kind of hint other than what he has already said. We have already been told what kinds of signs to look for preceding His coming. Kona: do not abandon faith, seek ever more diligently for the truth.

Read the passage again, but this time forget that you are a LDS living in 21st century USA. If you were a Jew living in 600 or so B.C. and hearing Isaiah's prophesy of the coming invasion from Babylon and the fall of Jerusalem, would you see these word a bit differently? For the prophecy to be of any benefit to the first hearers they would had to see and know the same things you do now. Verse 4 does not speak of anyone being transported anywhere (like America) but of death and utter annihilation. It is a poetic way of stating a gruesome and haunting truth: "Jerusalem will be destroyed and your graves will give testimony that I God have judged you." Also, the reference to someone that "hath a familiar spirit" would be a medium, someone who communicated with the dead and whose words were often mumbled and rambling. It all speaks of the death of the nation of Israel, not a new beginning in the new world, not of written words dug up in New York, but of judgment. Later, Ezekiel will receive the vision of the valley of bones that grow flesh and then God breathes life into them and they march out as a great army, all of course depicting the "resurrection" of the Jewish nation. In verse 6 the thunder, earthquake and fire would describe more likely the battle of Gog and Magog (a future battle where Russia and the Arab nations try to destroy Israel but God destroys them with an earthquake, fire, etc.), or even Armegeddon itself. Regardless, the main thrust of this passage is that the nation of Israel will soon be destroyed for sin, but then someday God will restore the nation (not the church as a "spiritual" Israel) and their enemies will be destroyed instead. In verses 11-12 you have read into it far too much. The vision referred to is the one you are reading, not some future revelation. The learned and unlearned men are not future individuals but the average guy on the street in Isaiah's day. It says in verse 10 that God has put a deep sleep on the people, sealing the eyes of the prophets because as verse thirteen describes, the nation had turned away from God. So the warning is perfectly clear, but the people do not heed it and the judgment comes to pass. This prophecy is for Israel, not for us Gentiles. It is about the judgment and redemption of the nation of Israel, no Christian of any kind can apply this to themselves or their church. blessings

and where will you go now?

Thank-you for the link tubaloth, and thank you both for answering my question. So it is true then that new revelation can overrule the old in the LDS church. As an outsider looking in I would have to echo tree's sentiment that it sounds a bit "iffy." I would also challenge either of you on one point: did Jesus really overrule Moses or any prophet, if so on what point? Yes, He certainly ushered in a new covenant making the old obsolete (as prophesied in Jeremiah 31) but did he ever say anything to the effect: "Moses said this but now I tell you..." ?

I heard recently that only the words of the living LDS prophet were binding on Latter Day Saints, or in other words that a living prophet can overrule a past prophet. Is that true? I also heard that President Hinckley passed away, so I send my condolences also.