How important is Isaiah?

[Traveler]

As a piece (or Book) of scripture – Isaiah is quoted in both in the Book of Mormon as well as the New Testament.  Hymns reference Isaiah as well aand Jesus quoted Isaiah when visiting the Nephits.   With all that Isaiah brings to the table of revelation – it seems to me that Isaiah is the most feared scripture – even among LDS.   Many gloss over Isaiah if they read it at all.  Many have expressed that the references to Isaiah in the Book of Mormon are the hardest to understand and the least popular to read part of the Book of Mormon.

I am wondering – What are your impressions of the Book of Isaiah – especially what Isaiah contributes to your understanding of doctrine, your personal witness of Christ and why you have chosen to worship with the congregation (church) that you do?  And a final question – how well do you think you understand Isaiah. (1. comparable to a Prophet, 2. Right there with the leading religious scholars. 3. As well as any inspired seeker of truth that reads scripture and seeks spiritual guidance. 4. You have your own ideas about Isaiah that you feel is better than all the other written (not scripture) about Isaiah. 5. You really do not care that much about Isaiah and think anyone wrapped up in Isaiah is religious goof-ball.  6. Isaiah makes no sense to you and you do not care to make any sense of it anyway.  7. Others

Finally – how open to opinions and discussions (especially new to your ideas) concerning interpretations or methods to understand Isaiah; are you?

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

I am OK with Isaiah.

I don't think Isaiah is that important.  Both the Book of Mormon (which contains some Isaiah) and the New Testament are far more important.  Isaiah to me is more about getting a general spiritual feel than learning specific doctrines (as is most of the Old Testament).

However, Isaiah (and all of the books of the prophets in the Old Testament) can be a refreshing way to think differently, and rather poetically, about Christ, repentance, righteousness, etc.

I also don't think Isaiah is the hardest book in the scriptures by a long shot.  That would be the book of Job, with the constantly misinterpreted Book of Revelation not far behind.

[zil]

29 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Many have expressed that the references to Isaiah in the Book of Mormon are the hardest to understand and the least popular to read part of the Book of Mormon.

IMO, the repetition of this phrase is like shooting yourself in the foot, and is at least half the problem.  We should start smacking people who say this.  (Alternately, we can require that they bring extra brownies to each activity, if we have to get all Mormon about it.)

[NeuroTypical]

Isaiah is so dang important they had to come up with a new verb tense for the way the guy talks.  Prophetic Perfect - talking about future events in the past tense. 

I don't get Isaiah at all.  I do read what smart people have to say about Isaiah, and am edified in that way.  But when I read Isaiah on my own, I might as well be reading the ingredients on a cereal box for all the good it does me. 

[Vort]

The Book of Mormon was written specifically for our day. It quotes extensively from Isaiah.

The resurrected Lord Jesus Christ quoted from Isaiah as part of his precious few hours and days he spent with his disciples in the Americas. I think that says something.

We certainly do not understand Isaiah as well as, say, Nephi did. We do not understand Isaiah as well as we ought to. So Isaiah is not as important to us as it might be. But that is an indictment of us, not of Isaiah.

I believe we will yet find that the book of Isaiah is vitally important to us, perhaps as important as any scripture we have.

[Just_A_Guy]

I would put myself at about a 3.5 on the suggested scale.  But Isaiah is like an onion, and different layers—the poetic layer, the messianic layer, the historical layer, the millennial layer, the political layer—may be best understood by different subsets of people.

I like reading Isaiah—I like the challenge; I like the flow of the language as it is rendered in the KJV; I like the imagery (to the extent I can understand it).  Generally, at this point in my life, as I read it my biggest takeaways are how much the Lord loves His people, how patient He is with us, how much He wants us to trust Him, and how heartbroken He is when we fail in our attempts to establish Zion.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

54 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

my biggest takeaways are how much the Lord loves His people, how patient He is with us, how much He wants us to trust Him, and how heartbroken He is when we fail in our attempts to establish Zion

I agree with these themes as present in Isaiah. However, let me note that the "for all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still" is not imagery of a compassionate God extending the hand of mercy toward his wayward children. Rather, it is the imagery of a just God piling retribution upon retribution with his extended hand of destruction. Even after all the horrid destructions wrought to that point, his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still -- that is, his justice will not be denied, no matter how horrible the sufferings of the wicked in covenant Israel.

At some point, we will finally understand this, not merely as a point of correct scriptural interpretation but as a deep understanding of how God's justice cannot and will not be denied, and we have no hope at all except it be through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Which, after all, is Isaiah's whole point.

EDIT: Corrected "arm" for "hand".

Edited October 13, 2017 by Vort

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree with these themes as present in Isaiah. However, let me note that the "for all this his anger is not turned away, but his arm is stretched out still" is not imagery of a compassionate God extending the arm of mercy toward his wayward children. Rather, it is the imagery of a just God piling retribution upon retribution with his extended arm of destruction, and even after all the horrid destructions wrought to that point, his anger is not turned away, but his arm is stretched out still -- that is, his justice will not be denied, no matter how horrible the sufferings of the wicked in covenant Israel.

At some point, we will finally understand this, not merely as a point of correct scriptural interpretation but as a deep understanding of how God's justice cannot and will not be denied, and we have no hope at all except it be through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Which, after all, is Isaiah's whole point.

That probably is the case for many of the instances, though in Isaiah 5–given how our leaders are prone to reading the rest of that chapter—a “mercy reading” (conditioned on repentance, of course) seems to make a little more sense in that particular instance. 

But at any rate, I was thinking less of those passages and more of Chapters 45 and 48.

[Vort]

16 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

That probably is the case for many of the instances, though in Isaiah 5–given how our leaders are prone to reading the rest of that chapter—a “mercy reading” (conditioned on repentance, of course) seems to make a little more sense in that particular instance. 

Not how I read it. Isaiah 5:25 reads:

Quote

Therefore is the anger of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Realistically, I see no way to read this other than that the Lord's hand (not arm, my bad) of retribution is punishing apostate Israel with a continual stroke (cf. Isaiah 14:6).

Our leaders are free to interpret this in any way that makes sense to them, and are also free to use whatever scriptural imagery they find in whatever way they find appropriate. They are the leaders; teaching us is their calling. I won't tell them they're wrong, but instead will try to learn from them. However, the scripture above says what it says, and however one may choose to interpret it, its intrinsic meaning seems clear. At least to me.

[Just_A_Guy]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not how I read it. Isaiah 5:25 reads:

Realistically, I see no way to read this other than that the Lord's hand (not arm, my bad) of retribution is punishing apostate Israel with a continual stroke (cf. Isaiah 14:6).

Our leaders are free to interpret this in any way that makes sense to them, and are also free to use whatever scriptural imagery they find in whatever way they find appropriate. They are the leaders; teaching us is their calling. I won't tell them they're wrong, but instead will try to learn from them. However, the scripture above says what it says, and however one may choose to interpret it, its intrinsic meaning seems clear. At least to me.

Right; but immediately after that verse Isaiah starts talking about actions that have traditionally (in LDS discourse) been interpreted as constituting Israel’s latter-day gathering, not its former-day punishment.  It’s always possible that there’s dual prophecy or something going on, of course; and certainly it would be a horrible misreading to suggest that Isaiah is presenting God as any sort of pushover.  

But there’s much, much more going on than simple fire and brimstone.  I read Isaiah, and I think I see God opening His heart to us.

Edited October 13, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Right; but immediately after that verse Isaiah starts talking about actions that have traditionally (in LDS discourse) been interpreted as constituting Israel’s latter-day gathering, not its former-day punishment.  It’s always possible that there’s dual prophecy or something going on, of course; and certainly it would be a horrible misreading to suggest that Isaiah is presenting God as any sort of pushover.  But there’s much, much more going on than simple fire and brimstone.

And there's a paragraph marker between the two. I think you're, um, reaching.

I just did a search for "stretched out still" and cannot find a version that isn't preceded by anger.  When it comes to mercy, the phrase seems to be "arm of mercy" (often with "extended").

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, zil said:

I just did a search for "stretched out still" and cannot find a version that isn't preceded by anger.  When it comes to mercy, the phrase seems to be "arm of mercy" (often with "extended").

I seem to remember, way back when I thought I could understand Isaiah better by reading Isaiah commentaries, that some author identified various stock phrases like "arm of the Lord" and (probably) "hand of the Lord". I remember "arm" specifically, and that it was associated with salvation. I don't know how much stock to put into such interpretations. It makes sense to me that Isaiah would use consistent imagery when writing, but I balk at the idea of having an equivalency sheet to refer to when reading Isaiah, that tells me that Symbol A means X and Symbol B means Y. Strikes me as too mechanistic, though I'm not saying it's wrong.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I seem to remember, way back when I thought I could understand Isaiah better by reading Isaiah commentaries, that some author identified various stock phrases like "arm of the Lord" and (probably) "hand of the Lord". I remember "arm" specifically, and that it was associated with salvation. I don't know how much stock to put into such interpretations. It makes sense to me that Isaiah would use consistent imagery when writing, but I balk at the idea of having an equivalency sheet to refer to when reading Isaiah, that tells me that Symbol A means X and Symbol B means Y. Strikes me as too mechanistic, though I'm not saying it's wrong.

I don't disagree, but when every instance of "stretched out still" says nearly the exact same thing, and there are no other instances saying different things, well, you know...  (I had though there were instances where "stretched out still" was accompanied by the idea of reaching out to save or bless us, but if there are such instances, I couldn't find them.  In fact, every instance but one (in Moses 7, talking about curtains) is in Isaiah, so I think this was a phrase / image he liked to use.  It was the exclusivity which seemed significant.)

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

What are your impressions of the Book of Isaiah – especially what Isaiah contributes to your understanding of doctrine, your personal witness of Christ 

I LOVE Isaiah!  It's my absolute favorite book of scripture and to me also the clearest (yeah, I'm the weirdo in the room).  It's imagery about Christ is amazing!!!  I got to run right now, but will right up an example of that later.  

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

and why you have chosen to worship with the congregation (church) that you do?

The reason I'm LDS is because this is where I find Truth from God and He witnesses it to me.  It's not directly due to any specific book.  That being said, Isiah's potent witness of Christ and his illustration of pre-earth certainly don't hurt  

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

And a final question – how well do you think you understand Isaiah. (1. comparable to a Prophet, 2. Right there with the leading religious scholars. 3. As well as any inspired seeker of truth that reads scripture and seeks spiritual guidance. 4. You have your own ideas about Isaiah that you feel is better than all the other written (not scripture) about Isaiah. 5. You really do not care that much about Isaiah and think anyone wrapped up in Isaiah is religious goof-ball.  6. Isaiah makes no sense to you and you do not care to make any sense of it anyway.  7. Others

Ummm... I don't think your scale here particularly applies.  When I read Isiah, to me the imagery and the message is super clear, because his writing style reflects my own weirdo thinking.  To me it just makes sense.  Some other books of scripture I really struggle with (like Numbers).  

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

Finally – how open to opinions and discussions (especially new to your ideas) concerning interpretations or methods to understand Isaiah; are you?

Don't get bogged down in the details.  In other words, focus on seeing the big picture forest rather than obsessing about individual trees (like specifically who this is).

Don't try to peg down just one specific interpretation: each passage usually refers to several things.  

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Jane_Doe said:

Some other books of scripture I really struggle with (like Numbers).

Funny how things change. Numbers was always among my least favorite of all books of scriptures. Then I read it several years back when I reread the Old Testament, and again a year or two ago when seminary was doing Old Testament. My, what a difference! I found it extremely interesting. I was fascinated by the precise measurements of the temple and such things. Yes, it was essentially a recipe book for cooking up a temple, but I really enjoyed it.

Pretty sure it was the Old Testament reading several years back where I paid close attention to the descriptions of the ark of the covenant. Suddenly one day, while reading, I realized to my amazement that the ark of the covenant was a portable throne! Jehovah himself was to sit on the "mercy seat" in judgment of Israel, in the Holy of Holies in his (portable) temple among the people! What a revelation that was, both figurative and literal.

[Anddenex]

I would specify that Isaiah is very important in our lives, much like Revelations. Isaiah reminds me of the Lord's words when he spake in parables and then says something to this nature to his disciples about revealing more to them. Isaiah is a door, when opened, we will understand more regarding the gathering and second coming.

I would say, some parts of Isaiah I understand more, other parts are still very confusing because I do not know the things Nephi specifies as why he was able to completely understand Isaiah.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

much like Revelations

Now there's a book that just sails on right past me. I want to understand it. I try. But to me, it reads like a fantasy novel written by someone on LSD. (No disrespect intended; the fault is mine, not the book's.) I will be rereading it in a month or two, and I sincerely hope I get something more out of it than I've managed to glean thus far.

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

And there's a paragraph marker between the two. I think you're, um, reaching.

I just did a search for "stretched out still" and cannot find a version that isn't preceded by anger.  When it comes to mercy, the phrase seems to be "arm of mercy" (often with "extended").

Given that I suggest that the phrase—at least sometimes—is intended as a transitional one, I’m less interested in what precedes the phrase than in what succeeds it.  In that vein, you’re right on Isaiah 9 (where the phrase appears 3 times, always immediately succeeded by an explanation that Israel’s wickedness persists).  But where the phrase appears in Chapter 10 the text immediately prophesies the Assyrian invasion of Judah—an invasion from which the Lord delivered Jerusalem; and which later OT authors regard as a token of divine mercy.  And in chapter 5, as I mention earlier, the phrase marks a transition from negative to positive if we believe conventional LDS interpretations of the latter half of the chapter. 

Pilcrows in the KJV (and chapter divisions, for that matter) were added by the translators when the translators thought they detected a shift in theme; to my knowledge they don’t reflect anything about the original Hebrew manuscript other than what a group of Protestants four centuries ago thought it should have meant.  (And FWIW, the transcription of Isaiah 5 in 2 Nephi 15 lacks the pilcrow.)

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

(And FWIW, the transcription of Isaiah 5 in 2 Nephi 15 lacks the pilcrow.)

To be fair, the punctuation in the Book of Mormon is, if anything, even less reliable than in the Bible, being set as it was by John H. Gilbert, a non-Mormon who worked as E. B. Grandin's typesetter (or "compositor"). Joseph Smith went over the published version, of course, but he was hardly educated in the fine points of English punctuation. I believe Elder Talmage also reworked some of it, though I expect he mainly worked to make it more readable. To this day, Book of Mormon punctuation is a mess. I have several places in my quad where I have written in my own ideas on how to punctuate things. My way reads a lot better, but I'm not holding my breath that a member of the Twelve will solicit my input for the next edition.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

To be fair, the punctuation in the Book of Mormon is, if anything, even less reliable than in the Bible, being set as it was by John H. Gilbert, a non-Mormon who worked as E. B. Grandin's typesetter (or "compositor"). Joseph Smith went over the published version, of course, but he was hardly educated in the fine points of English punctuation. I believe Elder Talmage also reworked some of it, though I expect he mainly worked to make it more readable. To this day, Book of Mormon punctuation is a mess. I have several places in my quad where I have written in my own ideas on how to punctuate things. My way reads a lot better, but I'm not holding my breath that a member of the Twelve will solicit my input for the next edition.

There have been a couple of BoM verses where I’ve played with the punctuation a bit, but I’ve never systematically applied to do so with the whole book.  I’d love to see you open a thread with your thoughts on possible alternative punctuations.   

I was in a stake institute class Wednesday night where we read 2 Ne 29:8, and it occurred to me that the verse is punctuated all wrong.  But I kept quiet, because making a comment like that is the sort of thing that makes the person sitting next to you start edging away slowly . . .

[zil]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But I kept quiet, because making a comment like that is the sort of thing that makes the person sitting next to you start edging away slowly . . .

 If that's all it takes, I'm going to start commenting on punctuation every time anyone is seated in the chair next to me.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

 If that's all it takes, I'm going to start commenting on punctuation every time anyone is seated in the chair next to me.

Shoot, I’d have thought the fountain pen thing would have been enough . . .

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

There have been a couple of BoM verses where I’ve played with the punctuation a bit, but I’ve never systematically applied to do so with the whole book.  I’d love to see you open a thread with your thoughts on possible alternative punctuations.

That would be an interesting thread. However, I fear that it might attract a spirit of criticism of our scriptures and our leaders, a kind of "I know better than those ignorant old fuddy-duddies" attitude. The desire to prove to oneself and others how brilliant one is seems to be a common weakness among Mormons, maybe especially among Mormons who frequent online discussion forums...present company excepted, naturally.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Shoot, I’d have thought the fountain pen thing would have been enough . . .

Oddly, no.  Most people pay no attention whatsoever to the pen I'm writing with.  I find this human indifference to writing instruments just plain weird.

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Now there's a book that just sails on right past me. I want to understand it. I try. But to me, it reads like a fantasy novel written by someone on LSD. (No disrespect intended; the fault is mine, not the book's.) I will be rereading it in a month or two, and I sincerely hope I get something more out of it than I've managed to glean thus far.

Your not alone in that feeling.