Circle Squared
A Textual Analysis of the Book of Mormon
Chapter 8: "Justifying the Means"
Chapter Summary:
Jacob continues reading from Isaiah: In the last days, the Lord will comfort Zion and gather Israel--The redeemed will come to Zion amid great joy--Compare Isaiah 51 and 52:1–2. About 559–545 B.C.
This chapter is yet another excerpt from Isaiah which should not be in the Book of Mormon. That is all I will say on this since I have explained it several times in other posts, and it is tiring restating the same argument. I'm sure by now you know my position.
I have been trying to figure out why Joseph Smith would include so much of the book of Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, assuming, of course, that Joseph made it all up. And I do. Why not include excerpts from other Old Testament books? Psalms has some nice poetry. Leviticus and Deuteronomy contain the Law of Moses, which Nephi references several times, but he does not list any specific laws. Not even the laws which his brothers violate. Genesis tells of the creation of the universe, yet this fundamental tale is not important enough to comment on. But Isaiah's perpetual flattery of god and his supposed predictions of the coming messiah make the cut?
From what I understand about Protestant Christians, for centuries there has been great importance placed on Isaiah's prophecies, which Christians assert are clearly fulfilled through Jesus Christ. They also claim that various passages in Isaiah predict the end times. Because of this, they love quoting Isaiah as proof of their beliefs.
Before starting the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith was a member of various Protestant churches and attended religious revivals where he likely often heard preachers read from Isaiah. Is it any wonder then that the church he founded places a similar emphasis on Isaiah's prophecies? Or that the ancient holy book he "found" and "translated", the pinnacle point of which is the foretold coming of Jesus to America, is padded with what Joseph Smith considered to be prophecies about Jesus from the bible?
To me this appears to be nothing more than a shallow and transparent attempt to appeal to other Protestant Christians who already hold Isaiah's prophecies in high regard.
Isaiah's prophecies are similar to the retrofitted prophecies in the Book of Mormon about Christopher Columbus and Joseph Smith. There is no way that either Protestants or Mormons can demonstrate that any of these prophecies were actually made beforehand, or that they were not simply doctored after the fact to make them look like fulfilled prophecies. But we do have evidence that at least some of Isaiah's prophecies were misinterpreted by early Christians (i.e. the virgin birth) or inserted into the New Testament by over-zealous scribes trying to make their case sound more convincing. After all, lying for The Lord isn't really a bad thing if it brings people to a belief in god, right?
Isaiah continues talking about righteous people being rewarded and wicked people being punished. Theologically speaking, it isn't very substantive despite the constant metaphors of moths eating garments and such. There is a reference to a dragon, which is apparently a metaphor to a king described in Ezekiel. I guess he liked to sneak around in rivers or something equally uncouth.
Really, the only philosophically significant point in the whole chapter, concerning morals being written on our hearts, is made almost as an aside in verse 7: "Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart I have written my law, fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings."
In almost every instance I can recall of people quoting this line, they have used it to imply that god's law is written upon the hearts of all men, rendering them without excuse for sinning. Perhaps there is another verse somewhere in the bible which clarifies this point to have that specific meaning (that's the trouble with the bible). But this verse seems to indicate that the law is written only on the hearts of the righteous--not the whole of mankind.
Either way, the point is moot, because if either situation was the case then moral laws, like those in scripture, would be useless. Righteous people would already know the laws and have no need for them to be spelled out. And what reason would unrighteous people have to read and comply to unsubstantiated moral assertions if the morals described don't already coincide with their current ethical standards? They would need a better reason to change their minds than "Our holy book says god says so."
It makes more sense to me that morals reflect our social nature as a species, as explained through evolution. It is a work in progress. Through discussions and debates and the application of laws we have refined our ethics. This is how civil liberties have been won and atrocities like slavery and genocide (both advocated in the bible, mind you) have been slowly squeezed out of modern societies. Only societies which still cling to the crutch of spelled out moral edicts from archaic, stagnant holy books have yet to realize the folly of these acts and their overall detrimental effects on society. Conversely, only societies which allow freedom of expression--including challenging theological thugs like Isaiah--seem to be capable of such expunging.