how do non-members explain Isaiah 29?

[Stampede]

But the thing is th Quran was written by Mohammed as prophesies, Much as we see the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Quran was never sealed or translated and did not come out of the dust from jerusalem.

[a-train]

Oh, I'm sure if we had a quick minded Muslim in our midst he could sort us out on all the details. My intent is not to demonstrate that the LDS interpretation of the chapter is incorrect, but merely to demonstrate that others can get it to correspond to other events to the tune of the convincing of millions of people and we need not make such activity the basis of our testimony as it is not the manner prescribed by the LORD.

-a-train

[Still_Small_Voice]

I find it interesting that verses 9 and 10 of chapter 29 speak of the people staggering because the Lord hath covered the seers and prophets. This is written right before Isaiah speaks of a sealed book.

Isaiah chapter 29

9 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.

10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.

[Guest Malcolm]

I find it interesting that verses 9 and 10 of chapter 29 speak of the people staggering because the Lord hath covered the seers and prophets. This is written right before Isaiah speaks of a sealed book.

Isaiah chapter 29

9 Stay yourselves, and wonder; cry ye out, and cry: they are drunken, but not with wine; they stagger, but not with strong drink.

10 For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: the prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered.

This an ominous prophesy about Jerusalem being sieged overuned and and destroyed by different nations.

Let's try:

9. The wicked, (bad people) and those that reject the voice of the lord thru His prophets and seers shall stumble. Not because they are drunk but because they walk in darkness and apostasy. Their spiritual eyes are closed because of sin.

10. The spirit of deep sleep describes the state of apostasy because of the transgression of the people and their iniquity. The Lord took away his prophets for they were rejected by the people of Jerusalem. They trusted in their "popular" leaders rather than in the seers of the Lord.

[darrel]

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

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

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.

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.

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?)

PC you have stated the primary difference between the Restored Authority to act for God and why so many churches misunderstand the True Gospel of Jesus Christ.. Evangelical Christianity has lost the true manner of calling, receiving and acting under the authority of God. Beginning with the Constantine Church and then through a fracturing and evolving of error through all the protestant movements to the present day. This is why the Gospel had to be restored to the earth in order to bring those who will listen to an understanding of the truth.

[inquirer_Jn1717]

... 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.

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.

[Guest Malcolm]

Although you claim increased light and understanding you went and sought IT from a source other than YOUR OWN understanding and spiritual discernment. Thus you adhered or accepted a third party interpretation of the passage. So, you suggest we are reading too much into the text, I point to you doing the contrary!!

The chapter in question is about the work and the wonder to come about by the hand of the Lord, why will the wise people (theologians, doctors of the law and the like) will be confounded and seers and prophet of the day shall have nothing to say. How new revelation and understanding shall come to the simple and meek and lowly. We do see fulfillment of prophesy in the chapter because that is our understanding based of additional revelation. That you are not able to see it relates to your position about and assumed interpretation of it. The same as our Jewish brothers with ALL Messianic prophesies.

Here is the issue. We all interpret something based on what we (think) we already know about the scripture. We (Christians) almost universally interpret Isaiah 53 as a prophesy about the the Messiah but not so our Jewish brothers. They ambivalently claim is about a "suffering servant" prophesy but even among the Rabbis thru the times there is contention about who this servant is!! We read it so because we bring such an interpretation/understanding to it. We see in Christ a fulfillment of that prophesy. We have a spiritual and mental scripting based on prior understanding which we bring to the reading of the scripture.

However, other verses/scriptures are sufficiently vague as to allow for multiple interpretations by different sects at different times. Psalm 2:7 reads:

"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my aSon; this day have I begotten thee."

Again, without a prior understanding of how these prophesies relate to Christ it would be difficult to see it in teh OT. Lucky for us Paul clarifies that they are indeed about the Savior in Acts 13:33. Now, you see Paul do this ALL the time. Pointing to prophesy/scripture from the OT and applying it to the coming and resurrection of Christ and the New Covenant.

I am afraid that unless you read the Book of Mormon in more detail and see how some of those prophets did exactly the same we won't be able to be on the same page. Also, the NT is not designed to be the fullness of the Gospel. Beyond the 4 Gospels and Acts, the rest are letters designed to address specific issues on a certain congregation somewhere. The Apostles explained principles and give specific explanations but they are not foundational documents in the way it is presented in the BoM, for example.

The BoM bares witness of Christ with a clarity, precision, specificity and exactness not found in the NT. The nativity scene is the most telling when the angel announces the birth of Christ and quoting the OT as to re-affirm the point. Contrast that with Mosiah 3. You may disagree or reject the doctrine but you can not claim to be confused in terms of who the scripture is talking about. It adds detail almost impossible to find in the NT or the OT, for that matter.

In summary, we may have to agree to disagree on this one.