A Sealed Book

[Mortal Man]

Lesson 37 in the Gospel Doctrine Study Guide instructs us to compare Isaiah 29:11-12 with Joseph Smith History 1:63-65 to see how Isaiah's prophecy about the sealed book has been fulfilled. From this comparison, it would appear that:

1. The "book that is sealed" is the Book of Mormon.

2. The delivery man is Martin Harris.

3. The "one that is learned" is Prof. Charles Anthon.

4. The "unlearned" man is Joseph Smith.

The study guide makes no mention of 2 Nephi 27:6-24, which contains many plain and precious details of Martin's trip not found in the King James Bible. The extra Isaiah verses found in 2nd Nephi 27 were ostensibly engraved onto the Brass Plates very shortly after Isaiah first wrote them down; hence, they ought to be closer to Isaiah's autograph than any other extant text.

The study guide also neglects to mention the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of Isaiah 29:11-26, which presents a slightly more polished version of the extra details recorded in 2 Nephi 27.

The lesson manual, Book of Mormon and JST all appear to be in conflict with Bill Hamblin's blog, which states that "chapter 29 is essentially an oracle predicting a siege of Jerusalem". Bill provides a detailed exegesis of 29:1-8 but then skips to the end of the chaper with no explanation of 29:11-12. I specifically asked him for his interpretation of 11 & 12 a week ago but he ignored the question. So I'll toss the following questions out to anyone interested in responding:

1. What is the sealed book in Isaiah 29:11?

2. Is the Correlation Committee embarrassed by 2 Nephi 27 or JST-Isaiah 29?

3. How did the extra verses in the BoM & JST get lost from all other Isaiah manuscripts?

4. Why would Isaiah interrupt his Jerusalem narrative to fast-forward ~2540 years into the future, to briefly mention an obscure incident on the other side of the world, before returning to his discussion of Jerusalem?

[LeSellers]

1. What is the sealed book in Isaiah 29:11?

You seem to be assuming there is only one book.

Have you never heard of "multiple fulfillment"?

2. Is the Correlation Committee embarrassed by 2 Nephi 27 or JST-Isaiah 29?

I see no reason to assume, as you seem to be doing, that they are.

3. How did the extra verses in the BoM & JST get lost from all other Isaiah manuscripts?

Once again, you assume they were "extra verses".

Further, you seem to be assuming that the only text in the JST in addition to that of the AV is in "lost verses".

Neither assumption is valid.

4. Why would Isaiah interrupt his Jerusalem narrative to fast-forward ~2540 years into the future, to briefly mention an obscure incident on the other side of the world, before returning to his discussion of Jerusalem?

You assume that Isaiah interrupted his narrative. There is no reason to do so.

Have you never heard of "multiple fulfillment"?

One wonders if you have a candidate, other than the Book of Mormon, for the sealed book. What, prithee, is it?

Lehi

[Mortal Man]

You seem to be assuming there is only one book.

Isaiah's noun is singular.

Have you never heard of "multiple fulfillment"?

Yes.

Have you ever heard of "having it both ways"?

I see no reason to assume, as you seem to be doing, that they are.

Why then did they not include them in the study guide? They provide a much clearer explanation of the Anthon affair than the KJV verses.

Once again, you assume they were "extra verses".

I'm not assuming anything. The extra verses are right there in the BoM and JST for all to see.

Further, you seem to be assuming that the only text in the JST in addition to that of the AV is in "lost verses".

Neither assumption is valid.

Do you dispute that

[LeSellers]

Isaiah's noun is singular.

Yeah? So?

His noun/pronoun were singular when he said the virgin shall conceive, too, but there were two baby boys: his own Mahershalalhashbaz and Jesus (neither of whom was "Immanuel", btw; I look for another baby, a third fulfillment).

Have you ever heard of "having it both ways"?

I have.

Just as Ahaz and Matthew had it both ways.

Why then did they not include them in the study guide? They provide a much clearer explanation of the Anthon affair than the KJV verses.

Yeah? So?

Your facts, assuming they are true anyway, do not lead, inexorably, to the point you insist on. Why "embarrassed"?

I'm not assuming anything. The extra verses are right there in the BoM and JST for all to see.

By "extra verses", I meant (and figured you did) that the the non-AV words were in the original Isaiah manuscript.

Do you dispute that

[TAO]

No, I do not dispute that. Where I do not agree with your interpretation is that this does not mean that Isaiah wrote every word now found in the JST Isaiah.

While I agree here, the BoM section does not have this problem, and the JST section should probably be taken a look at for interpretation of certain events. Actually, all three should be used.

The wording "restored truths to the Bible text" does not mandatorily mean that the truths so restored are in the same places they were three millennia back.

But they are still good for our knowledge, so they should probably still include it - if anything, it can provide some cool information, I love scripture linking.

I do agree that it be not because they are embarrassed though. But it should be included. A small-ish error made, needing to be fixed.

[Fifth Columnist]

From Rough Stone Rolling, the following excerpt is provided right after Bushman recounts Harris's trip to visit Anthon.

"For Joseph, Anthon's certification meant less than a discovery made sometime after Harris's return. Someone realized that Harris and Anthon had inadvertently fulfilled a prophecy in Isaiah that speaks of 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: And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." That realization thrilled Joseph. When he began writing his history in 1832, he took the pen in his own hands to describe the Anthon incident in terms that made it an exact fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11-12. He wrote that Martin Harris

took his journey to the Eastern Cittys and to the Learned saying read this I pray thee and the learned said I cannot but if he would bring the plates they would read it but the Lord had forbid it and he returned to me and gave them to me to translate and I said cannot for I am not learned but the Lord had prepared spectacles for to read the Book therefore I commenced translating the characters and thus the Prophicy of Isaiaah was fulfilled which is written in the 29 chapter concerning the book.

At a time when Joseph's prphetic identity was jelling, a reference in the Bible was far more important than a verification of the translation. The Anthon incident brought Joseph into the biblical narrative, connecting him to the primary source of his creative energy. The Bible had prophesied his life."

This demonstrates that someone else first had the idea that Harris's visit to Anthon was a fulfillment of Isaiah 29 since this happened before JS translated the relevant text in the BOM or the JST.

[LeSellers]

While I agree here, the BoM section does not have this problem, and the JST section should probably be taken a look at for interpretation of certain events. Actually, all three should be used.

It seems that this may one of the places that Nephi "likened the scriptures unto [his people]." By extension, since the entire Book of Mormon was written for us, centuries after the authors inscribed it, that wording was at least as much for the XIX~XXI world as it was for his own family.

In this case, I believe he wrote what Isaiah should have written. Whether the older prophet did or did not, I do not know, nor do I particularly care.

That this passage was a reference to the Harris trip, I have no doubt. The Martin Harris/Anthon exchange was part of the design for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. Nephi (assuming Isaiah did not pen the passage as Nephi recorded it) was inspired to transmit this idea to Joseph for precisely that reason, and perhaps others, as well.

Lehi

[TAO]

It seems that this may one of the places that Nephi "likened the scriptures unto [his people]."

That it may have been. But then again, how do we know that it is any less accurate than the current Isaiah in the KJV. Indeed, could it, even, have been likening?

[Mortal Man]

From Rough Stone Rolling, the following excerpt is provided right after Bushman recounts Harris's trip to visit Anthon.

...

This demonstrates that someone else first had the idea that Harris's visit to Anthon was a fulfillment of Isaiah 29 since this happened before JS translated the relevant text in the BOM or the JST.

We discussed Bushman's account here. His views pose a lot of questions and raise several contradictions.

[Palerider]

Lesson 37 in the Gospel Doctrine Study Guide instructs us to compare Isaiah 29:11-12 with Joseph Smith History 1:63-65 to see how Isaiah's prophecy about the sealed book has been fulfilled. From this comparison, it would appear that:

1. The "book that is sealed" is the Book of Mormon.

2. The delivery man is Martin Harris.

3. The "one that is learned" is Prof. Charles Anthon.

4. The "unlearned" man is Joseph Smith.

The study guide makes no mention of 2 Nephi 27:6-24, which contains many plain and precious details of Martin's trip not found in the King James Bible. The extra Isaiah verses found in 2nd Nephi 27 were ostensibly engraved onto the Brass Plates very shortly after Isaiah first wrote them down; hence, they ought to be closer to Isaiah's autograph than any other extant text.

The study guide also neglects to mention the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of Isaiah 29:11-26, which presents a slightly more polished version of the extra details recorded in 2 Nephi 27.

The lesson manual, Book of Mormon and JST all appear to be in conflict with Bill Hamblin's blog, which states that "chapter 29 is essentially an oracle predicting a siege of Jerusalem". Bill provides a detailed exegesis of 29:1-8 but then skips to the end of the chaper with no explanation of 29:11-12. I specifically asked him for his interpretation of 11 & 12 a week ago but he ignored the question. So I'll toss the following questions out to anyone interested in responding:

1. What is the sealed book in Isaiah 29:11?

2. Is the Correlation Committee embarrassed by 2 Nephi 27 or JST-Isaiah 29?

3. How did the extra verses in the BoM & JST get lost from all other Isaiah manuscripts?

4. Why would Isaiah interrupt his Jerusalem narrative to fast-forward ~2540 years into the future, to briefly mention an obscure incident on the other side of the world, before returning to his discussion of Jerusalem?

The sealed book represents the legitimate biblical prophecies and writings to Israel who, in her state of apostacy was (and is) unable to discern, understand and inculcate them and therefore live up to her special place and calling before the Lord. There will come a time however when those prophecies and writings will be understood (by Israel and also those who are not of Israel, that is the gentiles) and she will finally acheive her ultimate and righteous splendor before the Lord.

I believe this makes the rest of your questions irrelevant.

[noel00]

I thought there was some rule in Hebrew that when refering to a city, you used feminine endings. Since Ariel is Jerusalem and a city, I understand that throughout this chapter fem endings are used. Therefore it has nothing to do with some 19th cent happening but refers to Jerusalem.

[Joseph Antley]

Probably because the Correlation Committee realize that 2 Nephi 27 and the JST are not necessarily representative of the original Isaiah. I believe that 2 Nephi 27 is a midrash of the Isaiah chapter from either Nephi or Joseph Smith (regardless, inspired by God) in order to relate the chapter to an event more pertinent to them (2 Nephi 28 goes on to discuss "the book" which will be of "great worth unto the children of men").

I certainly do not believe that the CC is embarrassed by these chapters. That was a ridiculous question to even ask.

3. How did the extra verses in the BoM & JST get lost from all other Isaiah manuscripts?

Since I'm inclined to believe that the BoM & JST are not representative of the original Isaiah but rather represent an inspired midrash, this question is also moot.

[dbschroeder]

Here's an interesting story connecting Isaiah Chap 29 and the B of M together.

I know this fellow, he is a friend on mine and a good and righteous person.

Former Presbyterian Church Members

Two Years That Changed My Life

Bobby Van Rooy

My conversion took about two years, but I'll take it from the last 8 months. I was 27 years old and divorced already. Living in Hawaii and a professional musician/entertainer.

While performing in San Diego I decided to go to the LDS church in Mission Bay where I was staying. I was very depressed and feeling guilty about things in my life. I was a bit late and the church service was packed. I noticed the front pew was open, so I walked down to the front and sat down. I didn't realize I came in on what they called their once a month "fast & testimony" meeting.

I had not slept much lately and was a bit exhausted, I was listening to an attractive young woman talking and, to tell you the truth, can't remember one word she said. But as I listened, something funny happened; I started seeing an aura, a golden aura around her.

As she finished and young man came up and expressed his gratitude to his Heavenly Father and I remembered the tears welling up in my eyes as I saw an aura around him too. He looked down at his wife and two little girls and expressed his appreciation and love for them. It truly touched my heart.

As the sacrament ended, I tried to duck as many Mormons as I could to get to the exit door; I did remarkably well, until I got to the parking lot.

As I started to walk past the cars and towards my apartment in the space of one second that it takes for me to pass someone looking into the rear-view mirror, this gentleman by the name of Delbert Nichols saw me pass in that split second in his rear-view mirror. He immediately got out of his car and introduced himself to me and I to him.

He asked me if I was a visitor and I replied I was. He asked me what Ward I was from and I was not familiar with the terminology of "ward" and I told him that I wasn't familiar with that term. He said, "You're not a member of the Church are you?" and I replied "No, I'm not, was it OK to come to your church?" and he said, "of course, we love having visitors come".

Then he said the magic four words that all starving musicians love to hear, "have you had dinner?" I replied "no, not yet". He invited me to come to his house and I gladly accepted.

When I got to his house he asked me what religion I was and I replied that I was never baptized any religion, but that my father was Presbyterian and my mother Catholic and her mother 7th Day Adventist and her mother a high voodoo priestess that used to heal people. He got a kick out of that one.

He asked if I believed in my religion and I said "no" and he asked me "why not?" So I explained that I had been searching for almost two years. That the only religious knowledge I ever received was from my maternal grandmother.

I told him that I felt lost, and that I was searching but I felt that all religions where great money makers! I also felt that if there really is a God he must have His church here on this earth somewhere, but where? Then Del asked me, what made you come to our LDS Church. |

This is what I said exactly: "Because you have the balls to tell the world you have a Prophet and twelve Apostles and funny as it seems, you're the only people I see that has a Church named after the very being Christians worship, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints! Now either you guys are for real or you're another phony Christian Church!" Del got a kick out of that one.

We sat and talked for over two hours as he proceeded to tell me about the plan of salvation. As I sat there, I could feel my brain absorbing about as much as I could in those two hours and had to stop Del from going any further and asked if I could come back the next day and learn more, but as far as for today, my brain could not handle anymore,

I had learned more in those two hours I felt than I did in the 15 years I spent in schooling or on the road as a performer!

I noticed he had a Book of Mormon and a book called "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder", by Le Grand Richards, and Del gave me both books. I made a commitment to read both books.

Again let me lapse another 8 months and tell you that I read the Book of Mormon, D&C & The Pearl of Great Price 3 times! So by the time I went back to Hawaii I decided to go to a LDS church that I saw in Waikiki at the end of Kalakaua Street. Mind you, this was my 5th year in Hawaii, the band I was in had worked with Don Ho at Duke Kahanamoku

[Mortal Man]

Probably because the Correlation Committee realize that 2 Nephi 27 and the JST are not necessarily representative of the original Isaiah.

Bingo.

I believe that 2 Nephi 27 is a midrash of the Isaiah chapter from either Nephi or Joseph Smith (regardless, inspired by God) in order to relate the chapter to an event more pertinent to them (2 Nephi 28 goes on to discuss "the book" which will be of "great worth unto the children of men").

Bingo again.

What, if anything, suggests that Nephi is responsible for these verses? By all appearances, he's simply copying directly off the Brass Plates. Did Joseph copy 2 Nephi 27 into the JST? A textual analysis clearly indicates that JST Isaiah 29 is a second draft of 2 Nephi 27.

I certainly do not believe that the CC is embarrassed by these chapters. That was a ridiculous question to even ask.

You stated that the CC realized "that 2 Nephi 27 and the JST are not necessarily representative of the original Isaiah." This is contrary to official church doctrine (see my previous links). Is that not cause for embarrassment?

Since I'm inclined to believe that the BoM & JST are not representative of the original Isaiah but rather represent an inspired midrash, this question is also moot.

It sounds like we're basically in agreement.

[Joseph Antley]

Bingo.

Bingo again.

What, if anything, suggests that Nephi is responsible for these verses? By all appearances, he's simply copying directly off the Brass Plates.

No, I disagree. Unlike most of his other Isaiah quotations, Nephi does not here introduce the chapter or section as the words of Isaiah or even indicate that he's quoting something at all. He just dives right into it. Directly after the midrash he says, "Behold, my brethren, I have spoken unto you, according as the Spirit hath constrained me." He gives no indication that he copying from the brass plates.

Did Joseph copy 2 Nephi 27 into the JST? A textual analysis clearly indicates that JST Isaiah 29 is a second draft of 2 Nephi 27.

I think that the BoM text likely inspired lots of parts of the JST since the Prophet knew that the BoM text was inspired. However because it restores an ancient truth, doctrine, or teaching does not mean that the JST restores the actual original words which Isaiah penned.

You stated that the CC realized "that 2 Nephi 27 and the JST are not necessarily representative of the original Isaiah." This is contrary to official church doctrine (see my previous links). Is that not cause for embarrassment?

I do not believe this is contrary to official church doctrine, and I do not see it as cause for embarrassment.

[Mark Beesley]

The extra Isaiah verses found in 2nd Nephi 27 were ostensibly engraved onto the Brass Plates very shortly after Isaiah first wrote them down; hence, they ought to be closer to Isaiah's autograph than any other extant text.

Nephi does not claim to be quoting Isaiah in Chapter 27. Where Nephi is directly quoting Isaiah, it is rather clear. However, in Chapter 25, Nephi states his intention to talk about the words of Isaiah, not quote them further. Chapter 27 is clearly Nephi talking about things he had both read in Isaiah and which he had personally seen. Nephi, was a prophet who was not shy about going to the Lord and asking to be shown things that other other prophets had seen.

When Book of Mormon chapter headings tell us to compare Book of Mormon Chapters with Biblical chapters, it is not suggesting that a word for word comparison; they are suggesting a conceptual and docrtrinal comparison. And with such a comparison, there is nothing for anyone to be embarassed about.

[Sargon]

I tend to view the LDS interpretation of passages like this one in Isaiah, and also the passage about the "two sticks" in Ezekiel as re-contextualizations of passages that originally had something very different in mind. Isaiah wasn't thinking about the Book of Mormon. Ezekiel wasn't thinking about the Book of Mormon. We've simply adopted those passages and likened them unto ourselves, as Nephi teaches us to do.

This is not a uniquely Mormon way of doing things. The earliest Christians (and most modern Christians) do it all the time. Isaiah prophesied that a virgin shall conceive, but in context there is no way it could refer to Jesus. The New Testament is full of things like that, prooftexts from the Old Testament that simply don't pan out. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls did it too, they recontextualized ancient passages so that they applied to their own situation.

Is that a problem? Well, it is only a problem if we push it on non-believers. This method of re-contextualizing probably shouldn't be used as prooftexts in a debate. It just won't persuade anyone, and it is totally faulty. But it is a longstanding and legitimate tradition with Judao-Christian communities to read the scriptures in this manner.

[Mortal Man]

I tend to view the LDS interpretation of passages like this one in Isaiah, and also the passage about the "two sticks" in Ezekiel as re-contextualizations of passages that originally had something very different in mind. Isaiah wasn't thinking about the Book of Mormon. Ezekiel wasn't thinking about the Book of Mormon. We've simply adopted those passages and likened them unto ourselves, as Nephi teaches us to do.

This is not a uniquely Mormon way of doing things. The earliest Christians (and most modern Christians) do it all the time. Isaiah prophesied that a virgin shall conceive, but in context there is no way it could refer to Jesus. The New Testament is full of things like that, prooftexts from the Old Testament that simply don't pan out. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls did it too, they recontextualized ancient passages so that they applied to their own situation.

Is that a problem? Well, it is only a problem if we push it on non-believers. This method of re-contextualizing probably shouldn't be used as prooftexts in a debate. It just won't persuade anyone, and it is totally faulty. But it is a longstanding and legitimate tradition with Judao-Christian communities to read the scriptures in this manner.

Well said.

[David T]

I tend to view the LDS interpretation of passages like this one in Isaiah, and also the passage about the "two sticks" in Ezekiel as re-contextualizations of passages that originally had something very different in mind. Isaiah wasn't thinking about the Book of Mormon. Ezekiel wasn't thinking about the Book of Mormon. We've simply adopted those passages and likened them unto ourselves, as Nephi teaches us to do.

This is not a uniquely Mormon way of doing things. The earliest Christians (and most modern Christians) do it all the time. Isaiah prophesied that a virgin shall conceive, but in context there is no way it could refer to Jesus. The New Testament is full of things like that, prooftexts from the Old Testament that simply don't pan out. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls did it too, they recontextualized ancient passages so that they applied to their own situation.

Is that a problem? Well, it is only a problem if we push it on non-believers. This method of re-contextualizing probably shouldn't be used as prooftexts in a debate. It just won't persuade anyone, and it is totally faulty. But it is a longstanding and legitimate tradition with Judao-Christian communities to read the scriptures in this manner.

I agree 100%. More, if that were possible.

[Fifth Columnist]

I tend to view the LDS interpretation of passages like this one in Isaiah, and also the passage about the "two sticks" in Ezekiel as re-contextualizations of passages that originally had something very different in mind. Isaiah wasn't thinking about the Book of Mormon. Ezekiel wasn't thinking about the Book of Mormon. We've simply adopted those passages and likened them unto ourselves, as Nephi teaches us to do.

This is not a uniquely Mormon way of doing things. The earliest Christians (and most modern Christians) do it all the time. Isaiah prophesied that a virgin shall conceive, but in context there is no way it could refer to Jesus. The New Testament is full of things like that, prooftexts from the Old Testament that simply don't pan out. The authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls did it too, they recontextualized ancient passages so that they applied to their own situation.

Is that a problem?

I guess not . . . if everyone knows that's what is happening. Somehow I doubt most members have any idea that this is what is going on.

Just curious, do you think it would be okay for me to give your explanation of Ezekiel's two sticks prophecy in Sunday School with this lesson? http://goo.gl/mv8d. Do you think I may get called into the Bishop's office for teaching something like that?

[David T]

I guess not . . . if everyone knows that's what is happening. Somehow I doubt most members have any idea that this is what is going on.

Just curious, do you think it would be okay for me to give your explanation of Ezekiel's two sticks prophecy in Sunday School with this lesson? http://goo.gl/mv8d.

Of course. The lesson itself points out that it's only one of other interpretations.

Do you think I may get called into the Bishop's office for teaching something like that?

Of course not. That's silly.

[Fifth Columnist]

Of course. The lesson itself points out that it's only one of other interpretations.

Actually, I think it says that the prophecy has a dual meaning.

Explain that Ezekiel

[David T]

I didn't see anything to indicate that it would be okay to acknowledge the existence of or discuss in detail conventional scholarly interpretations.

Since when does the manual tell you everything that is okay to do?

If you feel it would benefit the class and be worthwhile use of time in the context of the stated objective of the class, and not just be an out-of-the-blue non sequitur without a planned teaching purpose, then go ahead.

On the other hand, the manual also makes clear that not everything in the manual needs to be covered. there are definitely aspects of lessons listed in the manual I would not cover if I were called to teach them.

Prepare according to the spirit with the stated class objective in mind. Which, I believe, is "To encourage class members to fulfill their responsibilities as

[Fifth Columnist]

Since when does the manual tell you everything that is okay to do?

If you feel it would benefit the class and be worthwhile use of time in the context of the stated objective of the class, and not just be an out-of-the-blue non sequitur without a planned teaching purpose, then go ahead.

On the other hand, the manual also makes clear that not everything in the manual needs to be covered. there are definitely aspects of lessons listed in the manual I would not cover if I were called to teach them.

Prepare according to the spirit with the stated class objective in mind. Which, I believe, is "To encourage class members to fulfill their responsibilities as

[Sargon]

I guess not . . . if everyone knows that's what is happening. Somehow I doubt most members have any idea that this is what is going on.

Just curious, do you think it would be okay for me to give your explanation of Ezekiel's two sticks prophecy in Sunday School with this lesson? http://goo.gl/mv8d. Do you think I may get called into the Bishop's office for teaching something like that?

It depends on how you do it. A little bit of tact, coupled with humility, can go a long way. When presented as an alternative view to the traditional view, and when emphasized that it is your personal take and not an official Church interpretation, I think it ought to be just fine. I've taught this idea to my Sunday School class of teenagers and nobody batted an eye (though that could be because they were all asleep).