how do non-members explain Isaiah 29?

[minivan]

I was reading Isaiah 29 today and realized it was talking very specifically about the BoM, JS, and the restoration:

Verses from Isaiah 29:

---------------------------------------------

3 And I will camp against thee [Jerusalem] round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.-the destruction of Jerusalem; the reason Lehi and his family left for the America's in the 1st place.

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. -They were brought down to the Americas, and the words of the nephites and lamanites etc etc would "speak from the ground" because their words and writtings were burried beneath the ground (BoM burried on a hillside)

6 Thou shalt be visited of the Lord of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring afire. -Jesus visited them in the Americas; before he came there was all of which is described above.

11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed-The sealed portion of the BoM

12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.- Joseph Smith only had a few months of formal education.

13 Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men -the Lord said something to this effect when He appeared to Joseph in the Grove, the dawn of the restoration.

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.-the restoration

--------------------------------------------

I was wondering what other peoples takes on the chapter were, and more importantly,

what people of other faiths think about the chapter.

Interesting stuff!!

[inthearmsofsleep]

That's very good insight. I think that those who understand the Bible as it is meant to be understood won't go against the Book of Mormon unless it is out of ignorance. These are very plain things once understood under the direction of the Holy Ghost, and clearly point to what we believe to be true. I'm not sure how they try to explain it... I'm not sure if they do at all.

[WANDERER]

The sealed scroll in Revelations is the only other sealed book reference I can think of in the Bible.

[Mahonri]

Most non-members don't have a clue about understanding Isaiah.

Nephi read Isaiah and like you, knew it was talking about he and his people, that's why it is quoted so many times in the BOM.

[inquirer_Jn1717]

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

[WillowTheWhisp]

Before I joined the church I used to dread trying to read Isaiah because I couldn't make head or tail of a lot of it. Now it makes a lot more sense to me because I understand when he is talking about. It makes all the Messianic prophecies all the more beautiful.

[WillowTheWhisp]

no Christian of any kind can apply this to themselves or their church.

But he prophesies of Christ - or are you saying that Isaiah was referring to some other Messiah? Is this why the Jews are still waiting for him to come?

[minivan]

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.

are you saying the book it speaks of is purely metaphorical?

Why then does it go on to say very specific things about the book?

By the way, I think your interpretation of the chapter makes sense,

but it is one out of many completely different interpretations I have heard from different mainstream christians.

[tiancum]

I have found that with most prophecies, actually in all the language of the Lord, there is more than one meaning...There are always hidden things that take the spirit to understand, and most times, it happens little by little.

[inquirer_Jn1717]

But he prophesies of Christ - or are you saying that Isaiah was referring to some other Messiah? Is this why the Jews are still waiting for him to come?

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.

[inquirer_Jn1717]

are you saying the book it speaks of is purely metaphorical?

Why then does it go on to say very specific things about the book?

By the way, I think your interpretation of the chapter makes sense,

but it is one out of many completely different interpretations I have heard from different mainstream christians.

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.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I just read through Isaiah 29 this morning and it speaks so specifically of things relating to the Book of Mormon. To make it mean anything else is actually quite difficult. If I were reading it and didn't know about the Book of Mormon, the three witnesses, the eight witnesses, the sealed portion of the book, the fact that it came out of the ground, Charles Anthon (the learned man) and Joseph Smith (the man with little education) I would still be wondering what the heck it was all about and assuming it was some sort of prophecy which hadn't happened yet - but now that I know all these things I can see that Isaiah 29 is describing them perfectly. I got a really strong assurance of that this morning as I read.

[prisonchaplain]

I've never read this passage as having anything to do with LDS theology. Sure enough, due a google of "isaiah 29" and all sorts of LDS sites come up! Of course, this could be a 2-edged sword. For the faithful, confirmation is abundant--as outlined in the OP. For skeptics, some of the parallels are too convenient. And, as has been pointed out, the BoM contains lengthy passages from Isaiah. So, skeptics would suggest that Joseph Smith obviously had a liking for the book, and his writing might have relied somewhat on it as a background source.

Bottom line: The faithful can certainly find confirmation here, while investigators may find it either too vague, or somewhat interesting. Skeptics will suggest that Joseph Smith intentionally created fulfillments to prophecy, with Isaiah as an important base source.

[inquirer_Jn1717]

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.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I see what you are saying inquirer.Yes it would be very foolish to try to make the parable of the Good Samaritan mean something it was never intended to mean and yet to me your own analogy of the way the parable can be misinterpreted instead of taken at face value is exactly how I see Isaiah 29. You have to work hard at it to make it mean something else, like working hard at the coins to make them mean baptism and communion etc. But if you take Isaiah 29 at face value then the sealed book is a sealed book, the book comes out of the dust (ground), the three witnesses are three witnesses, the additional witnesses are the additional 8 witnesses, the learned man is a learned man (Charles Anthon) the unlearned is an uneducated man (Joseph Smith) - you don't have to work at it. It's plain and simple. Everything is exactly what it says it is, just as the coins are coins with which to pay the innkeeper.

So what do those things specifically relate to as regards the fall and restoration of the nation of Israel? You claim that it is so evident but I cannot see it. Before I knew about the Book of Mormon I hadn't a clue what Isaiah was on about so please if you could explain it to me how you and others see it I would be very grateful, but please be specific and not just vague woolly references to rising and falling.

[darrel]

I believe the key to understanding any scripture and the interpretation should follow the pattern of the scriptures:

(2 Peter 1: 20-21) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Also we need to remember that God will provide the understanding we need through the Holy Ghost. :)

[prisonchaplain]

Darrel, you bring up an important issue. Scripture is not of private interpretation, but the true meaning is revealed by the Holy Ghost. And yet, when there is more than one understanding, and proponents of different views all claim to be led by the Spirit? The problem is further confounded, in that, with the OP, the interpretation given specifically rejects the explanations of learned teachers--even though teaching is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

So how to discern what is truly of the Spirit? Prayer and inquiry of the Holy Ghost? Of course! Yet, I'd also suggest that we not neglect those whom the Holy Spirit has gifted as teachers. We love to say commentaries and such are "the opinions of men." Yet, it is God who gives us whatever is good. Should we despise wisdom?

Knowledge and anointing need not be competitors. In fact, "knowledge on fire" (super-heated by the directing of the Holy Spirit) is a powerful combination.

1. All Spirit and no sound scriptural teaching will lead to heresy

2. All doctrine and no Spirit will lead to Pharisaism

[Guest Malcolm]

Hello PC!! I have not seen you for a few days so I welcome your post. These are very interesting points you and inquirer make. understanding HAS to be based on prior knowledge/information, or the acceptance of information taken at face value based on the knowledge/information provided by others. So the issue here is whether we believe X based on what we have learned in the past, formed an opinion already about those facts and ascertain a position, or, take on a new position based on new information/knowledge.

I often wondered as a child how my grandmother knew about God and the Bible since nobody else around us seemed to or even owned a Bible. I remember her reading Isaiah 56 and tears rolling down her face. In 1948 she purchased a travel ticket by ocean going ship to go to Israel as soon as the Temple would be built. She was convinced it should be. The Lord clearly said it in that scripture that "all, even us the gentiles would be able to enter His temple and make offerings to the God Most High". Well, it did not happen for her. Sorely, disappointed she thought that the Jews did not want a temple any more, that they had stopped praying for a temple so the Lord did not avail them of one in Israel.

But she was convinced that there had to be a place "where the Spirit of God dwells, where His mercy touches the earth and men with clean hands and clean hearts leave the world behind to, even for a moment, commune with Him".

"We were born in the wrong country, son" she said. "We are here in the isles of the sea and far from where the truth shines. but go my son. The Lord will bless you and preserve you that you may live to reach the house of the Lord even if you have to climb to the top of the mountains but you will find it. For I know that there are men on the earth that walk with God and He hears them"

We lived in a dark and isolated corner of the world, she had no theological training and neither do I. The LDS church does not exist in the land of my forefather and nobody knows anything about it there. She read that old ragged bible every day for almost 100 years and the only influence she had was the Holy Ghost. I will not trouble you with my life's story but I can tell you that I take personal revelation from the Holy Ghost and the reading of the scriptures any day over "wisdom" which is the quasi-rational knowledge and philosophical framing of men.

I learned the Gospel from her and everything she taught me pointed to a church which is most peculiar among all other churches. And yes, the one that built and dedicated a Temple to the Lord our God in the top of the mountains.

Was my grandma a prophet? I think not. Was she inspired of God and did the Holy Ghost revealed things to her? Unquestionably.

[prisonchaplain]

Malcolm...my mother, back in about 1981, told me I should become a preacher. Her remark was not a command, nor even really a suggestion. Rather, it was just an off-hand comment, based on her impression at the moment. The incident is especially interesting in that: 1. She was not a professing Christian, and certainly not a church goer, and 2. Being a full-time church worker was nowhere on my radar screen.

I was commissioned as a missionary in 1990, licensed as a minister in 1993, and ordained in 1996. I received my chaplaincy commission in 1996 as well.

The kicker? My mother became a Christian about four years ago! So, Malcolm...I feel you!

[darrel]

PC you have some good points from the perspective of Evangelical Christianity. However from a Restored Gospel perspective we understand that authority must be the key to interpretation when conflicts of understanding arise.

Hebrews 5 tells us in verse 4 that No man is to take this honor (authority to preach) unto himself, but he be called of God as was Aaron.

We understand Aaron was called By the Prophet Moses by inspirtion or revelation from God. Moses then layed his hands on Aaron and set him apart for his ministry.

This shows a Prophetic authority must be present in order to minister in Gods kingdom.

The restored Gospel of Jesus Christ has the full priesthood authority from God administered by a Living Prophet today.

This authority was lost from the earth after Christs Apostles were killed. Those who continued to teach could not pass on the authority. The Nicean council did not set up their Christianity with the Authority of God.

[pbchilds74]

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.

I joined the church at 30 (4 years ago) and before that I had been a religion/theology major and an ordained non-denominational minister. I never heard a pastor preach from Isiah unless it was the christmas story ("a virgin shall conceve... ) My back ground is not preaching, I was a music minister, also I know that I only knew one pastor that attempted to preach on revelations, and he was gone from the church before he got through chapter 15.

My old testament professor said the exact same thing about isiah that inquirer said. It does not negate the truth of the prophesies, but the prophet who delivering them did not intend for people 2000 + years later to read them and get a message, he was not writing to us, he was writing to the people around him then. That said, we talk about God is the same yesterday, today and forever, then we have to assume that God gave the prophets the message for their time knowing the future impact the words would have. Of all the volumes of writings from the period 3000 years ago these survived, why? because God has a purpose for it.

[prisonchaplain]

PBC, you raise interesting points, and share your very interesting story. Thank you. I taught a series on Revelation that went three and a half years--and I'm still there. :-) Also, my fellowship is very fond of Isaiah 53--especially the first portion. I find it most appropriate to recite during Holy Communion--yes there is healing in the atonement.

So, what to do with prophetic passages in general? Context is everything, so of course, we first must see what the author was supposed to convey to the intended audience. Not only do we look for what was to physically happen, but what was the intended consequence of the prophecy? Repentence? Encouragement? Faith-building? Warning? Hope? Those are the primary lessons for us today. Sometimes there will be a prophecy that is fulfilled more than once. Many of the Messianic prophecies are viewed this way.

So, here's the clincher: As a Jewish rabbi about the passages in Isaiah that we acknowledge as Messianic, and he'll accuse you of childishly reading our own agendas into the Holy Scripture. BUT, we know we're right, because we know the Messiah came and did what Father promised he would.

With this Isaiah passage we have the same dilemma. LDS see promises of the BoM and Joseph Smith's latter day work, because you "know" he's a true prophet from God, and that the revelations he brought are from God. Protestants and Catholics look at your interpretation much as the rabbis look at Christian understandings of their scriptures.

[WillowTheWhisp]

So can anyone actually tell us what those specific verses relate to specifically if they relate to ancient Israel?

[prisonchaplain]

PC you have some good points from the perspective of Evangelical Christianity. However from a Restored Gospel perspective we understand that authority must be the key to interpretation when conflicts of understanding arise.

Hebrews 5 tells us in verse 4 that No man is to take this honor (authority to preach) unto himself, but he be called of God as was Aaron.

So far, no arguments. Of course, the question becomes, how does this calling take place, and who must recognize it?

We understand Aaron was called By the Prophet Moses by inspirtion or revelation from God. Moses then layed his hands on Aaron and set him apart for his ministry.

Evangelicals would emphasize that God called Aaron, and that Moses was merely the vessel God used to accomplish his calling.

This shows a Prophetic authority must be present in order to minister in Gods kingdom.

I would agree that the church leaders must recognize what God has done. I'm not so sure that the one gifted with prophecy was the key person in setting apart those ordained in the New Testament church.

The restored Gospel of Jesus Christ has the full priesthood authority from God administered by a Living Prophet today.

We'll disagree here. My understanding of the NT Church is that the entire church (not one branch) is a royal priesthood, and that the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) was not only for the apostles, but for all disciples.

This authority was lost from the earth after Christs Apostles were killed. Those who continued to teach could not pass on the authority. The Nicean council did not set up their Christianity with the Authority of God.

Most evangelical churches, mine included, contend that from the beginning, ordination (setting apart workers) happens as follows:

1. God calls the individual through inspiration of the Holy Spirit

2. God's leadership officially recognizes what God has already done.

BTW, the Council of Nicea didn't set up anything. It confirmed three centuries of church practice, and spelled out clearly what had been and should continue to be taught. (BTW, you know I'm not Catholic, right?)

[a-train]

I skimmed through and saw no mention of Islam. But, if it has been covered, forgive my redundance.

Muslims see the Quran as the book that was sealed. They speak of the Prophet (God's peace be upon him), as one having been unlearned to which it was delivered by an angel (Gabriel) and his reply was: 'I am unlearned'. The Quran also has directly in it verses that offer the same challange as often posed by LDS persons regarding production of a similar volume under similar circumstances being impossible. They too look to this seeming impossibility for vidication of divine origin.

The similarities between the Islamic interpretation of Isaiah 29 and the LDS understanding are very strong, only with the obvious shift of the identity of the book and the unlearned.

With an understanding that the same arguments had been made with regard to Islam for several centuries before Joseph Smith and continue to be made because they are directly in the text of the Quran, we LDS must not rely so heavily on such intangible and purely rational vindication.

The express vindication offered by the Book of Mormon itself is not any mechanism of pure logic or some rhetorical challenge to attempt to out perform it or match its nature. Rather, the sign of divine origin offered by the Book of Mormon is expressly the direct visitation of the Holy Ghost to those prayerfully engaged in ascertaining its truth. And, we as followers of that holy volume would do well to point to that great sign and refrain from philosophy.

-a-train