Problems with Lucifer

[TonkRogerio]

hey guys, i was wondering if you could all answer a question I have about the word Lucifer please.

first off let me explain i am not a troll and I'm not looking for trouble or anything, i just generally want to know and understand the problematic questions i have been having.

the word Lucifer is a mistranslation in the bible, yet the book of Mormon has the same passage that the Bible has containing the word Lucifer. The real words used in the bible were morning star, later translated to Lucifer which is a Latin name for the morning star.

does this mean that Joseph smith copied straight out of the King James version of the bible? because if he didn't then in the book of Mormon it would be morning start rather than Lucifer, and how come the LDS church is making Lucifer an official name for Satan?

i really hope there is an answer to this puzzle and if there is, please don't leave me in the dark

thanks for your time.

[pam]

My understanding is that the term Lucifer only refers to Satan during the time of the premortal council. Any other time he is referred to as Satan.

[marts1]

The BoM is translated as best as possible for our understanding.

[HiJolly]

hey guys, i was wondering if you could all answer a question I have about the word Lucifer please.

first off let me explain i am not a troll and I'm not looking for trouble or anything, i just generally want to know and understand the problematic questions i have been having.

the word Lucifer is a mistranslation in the bible, yet the book of Mormon has the same passage that the Bible has containing the word Lucifer. The real words used in the bible were morning star, later translated to Lucifer which is a Latin name for the morning star.

does this mean that Joseph smith copied straight out of the King James version of the bible? because if he didn't then in the book of Mormon it would be morning start rather than Lucifer, and how come the LDS church is making Lucifer an official name for Satan?

i really hope there is an answer to this puzzle and if there is, please don't leave me in the dark

thanks for your time.

We don't know why the word 'Lucifer' is in the Book of Mormon. When asked how he produced the Book of Mormon, Joseph and Oliver (the two principal people involved) would reply "The book was translated by the Gift and Power of God."

Combine that with the journal entries and letters written by eye-witnesses, we still don't have enough info to answer your question. For example, Emma Smith, (Joseph's wife) once wrote that Joseph did not use the Bible while translating. But this does not preclude the possibility that Joseph had an exceptional memory. We just don't know, though there is some evidence for that and we do know that Joseph was very familiar with the KJV Bible.

HiJolly

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it would have been very reasonable, where the text of the Book of Mormon acknowledged itself to be quoting Biblical prophets and where the Biblical passages were substantially correct, for Joseph Smith to simply copy verbatim the sections being quoted.

But it was not blind transcription. On my mission, I actually made a project of comparing certain passages of the Book of Mormon with their Biblical counterparts. Once you get over your shock at the parts of the text that are identical, look very closely at parts that are different. They are numerous, and thought-provoking.

For example, at one point an OT prophet (Malachi?) refers to the "Sun of Righteousness". The Book of Mormon quotes the same extract, but renders it "Son of Righteousness".

You might also want to look at this article.

[mightynancy]

I'm an interpreter and translator, and I don't usually say word-for-word what the speaker or writer says, I say what the speaker/writer means. For example, a speaker may say, "The cat got his tongue" and I might interpret it to the listener as "He couldn't speak." It's the same meaning but a different word choice for clarity. :)

[Heather]

I have problems with Lucifer too. What a jerk.

[TonkRogerio]

@ mightynancy, you caught my attention. So your saying its possible that Joseph Smith knew it was a mistranslation but he used it anyway just for clarity?

in other words, the original doctrine was never referring to the ruler of Babylon but he was in fact referring to Satan himself? if that is the case then why didn't he just put the word Satan instead? wouldn't that have been more clear and also right?

also, how come the church is still stating that Lucifer is the name of the opposition? has the prophet not had anything to say about this?

I'm sorry for all the pressure on this fact but its not something we can just pass over, its a critical point in my view which brings me to believe this church might not be the true church after all and that would suck cause i love the church, out off all the churches and beliefs i have researched this one has the most accurate view of what my limited human brain can comprehend of a perfect being.

what do you guys think?

PS: sorry for my horrible spelling and grammar, i had learning dificulties when it came to these two :S

[Snow]

in other words, the original doctrine was never referring to the ruler of Babylon but he was in fact referring to Satan himself? if that is the case then why didn't he just put the word Satan instead? wouldn't that have been more clear and also right?

Specific verses please.

[Just_A_Guy]

also, how come the church is still stating that Lucifer is the name of the opposition? has the prophet not had anything to say about this?

Why, yes! Yes, he (in this case, Joseph Smith) has:

And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,

And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.

If you want to get really picky about how names carry over in manuscripts written in different languages: God's name isn't Jehovah. It's Yahweh. But the Book of Mormon uses "Jehovah". Is that one more reason the Book of Mormon is false?

[Guest]

The Book of Mormon is still true. Pray about it =]

[Connie]

Does this help from the Bible Dictionary? Bible Dictionary: Lucifer

I'm not sure i'm understanding the question.

[Wingnut]

I've often heard cited the use of the word "adieu" in the Book of Mormon as evidence of its incorrectness. Reading the verse in which it occurs, it does feel oddly out of place. I believe that perhaps this might a similar situation, and similar to what Nancy described: Joseph Smith may have not written a word-for-word translation, but instead used what would be familiar to people.

[Finrock]

Good even TonkRogerio. It is a pleasure to meet you and welcome to the site! :)

I'm sorry for all the pressure on this fact but its not something we can just pass over, its a critical point in my view which brings me to believe this church might not be the true church after all and that would suck cause i love the church, out off all the churches and beliefs i have researched this one has the most accurate view of what my limited human brain can comprehend of a perfect being.

what do you guys think?

I'm curious about the fact that you feel this one issue is so significant that you would reject the Church on account of it. Now, I don't mean to devalue your concern. Certainly it is fair to seek for understanding and it isn't uncommon for people to have questions about the Church. Likewise, I feel that valid concerns should be addressed. Mind you, no one can guarantee that they will always have an answer for you. I hope that this isn't your expectation. However, it seems that of all the potential issues that a person may have with the Church that might shake their faith in it, this particular one seems rather petty.

Nevertheless, if simply resolving this issue is what it takes to convince you that this is the true Church then by all means lets see if we can get it resolved! :)

Since I'm not smart enough to answer this directly, I will quote from a question and answer dialogue from FairLDS. As I'm only quoting the parts I think are relevant, please see the link for the complete dialogue:

Lucifer is first mentioned (under that name) in the writings of Origen (end of the second century) some two hundred years before Jerome puts it into his Latin text. Tertullian and others of the early fathers of the church also discuss Lucifer, so the connection between Lucifer and Satan was established some time prior to the end of the second century. Before the Latin text becomes widespread, however, the name Lucifer had a much more specific meaning. It was the name of Satan prior to his fall from glory. Origen explains that this is because prior to his fall, he was a being of light and thus it was an appropriate description of him. After his fall, Origen continues, he was no longer a being of light and became known as Satan.

The second point is that the scholarly community almost universally rejects the being identified as helel ben shahar in Isaiah 14 as being the king of Babylon directly. There is a figure in contemporary Canaanite religion which resembles Helel in Isaiah 14. That figure is 'Athtar. At one point in Canaanite myth, 'Athtar attempts to sit in the throne of Ba'al, the king of the gods. He fails in his attempt, and instead descends to the earth to rule there. 'Athtar is known in southern Arabian inscriptions as Venus, or the Day Star. More than this though, is the account in Isaiah. The "stars of God" is a reference to the divine assembly--all of the divinities of heaven. The mount of the congregation in the sides of the north (in the original Hebrew) is equivalent to Canaanite phrases describing the dwelling place of Ba'al. So, in effect, we have in Isaiah a description of a divinity who wants to seize the throne of Ba'al and rule the heavens. Of course there are differences as well as similarities, but I find this argument to be fairly convincing myself.

There is no basis in Isaiah's charges as they would apply to the Babylonian king. It is primarily on the similarities between the Isaiah text, and text covering the Ba'al/'Athtar myth that this connection is drawn.

At the same time, this concept is, interestingly enough, seen in the New Testament. Jesus claims that he saw Satan "fall like lightning from heaven" and in John and Paul we find Satan described as the "God of this world." It was these references (among others) that led the early fathers of the Christian church to conclude that Helel in Isaiah 14 was Lucifer and also Satan. The similarities between their beliefs, and what they saw in the Old Testament texts came together to form a lasting opinion. And when the Latin text named the being in Isaiah 14 as Lucifer, that tradition has been followed ever since.

Tradition can be powerful. Current dictionaries will note that Lucifer is a name for the devil. The same can be seen in dictionaries contemporary with Joseph Smith. On some level, whether or not the identification of the being in Isaiah 14 with Satan is correct, traditionally, Lucifer has been considered a name for the devil in English since modern English came into existence. It is debatable whether or not Joseph's use of the term for the devil is based on his reading of the KJV of the Bible, or on the widespread use of the name in his time. I have dozens of early 19th century religious texts, and while Satan is by far the most popular term for the devil, Lucifer is used frequently. In view of this application, as long as Joseph was referring to the devil in his writings when he used the name Lucifer, he was conforming to a standard and accepted definition of a word. And the question of whether or not it was appropriate has to be overshadowed by the fact that everyone who read the material he produced would have had no problems at all understanding exactly what he meant. This doesn't seem to me to be a reflection of bad or improper inspiration in the D&C.

As a final note, the mention of Lucifer in D&C Section 76 is compatible with early Christian usage where Lucifer is the angel/divinity who was in the presence of God before his fall. While not universally so, LDS usage of the term has generally followed this principle.

Regards,

Finrock

Edited March 31, 2010 by Finrock
Fixed web link to fairlds article.

[pam]

also, how come the church is still stating that Lucifer is the name of the opposition? has the prophet not had anything to say about this?

I guess I don't understand your point or question on this. Lucifer is another name for Satan and Satan is opposition.

[TonkRogerio]

@snow- there is only one verse in the bible that has the mistranslation (Isa 14:12-17)

@justaguy- yes i know Jehovah isn't Gods name according to the LDS church. I know a lot about the Mormon church dude, the fact that his name isn't Jehovah is basic stuff, stuff like becoming Gods, God's planet, multiverses etc isn't unfamiliar to me, after all i am a Mormon, and I'm not trying to be picky nether, i simply have come across a problem and I'm trying to understand it better.

you did make a good point though, does the book of Mormon use the name Jehovah to describe God or Jesus?

and if its to describe God then it certainly answers some part of the question, the other part is that the official church standing on the matter is that God isn't Jehovah and that isn't the same case for Satan and Lucifer.

[Gwen]

i'm also in the camp of he used the name ppl were familiar with. if he had used something different ppl would have used that as "evidence" the book was false as well.... "see he didn't even know satan's name"

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".

[pam]

Jehovah is the name for Christ before he was born in Bethlehem. The same as Lucifer was the name for Satan in the premortal existence and council.

[TonkRogerio]

@finrock- thank you so much, the penny has dropped as the expression goes, i get it now, I'm still having some issues with it but i think i can work with this.

and please people, don't keep telling others to pray about everything to get answers praying is just a partial answer, seeking is the other part and this was me seeking :)

thanks for the help anyway guys

@Pam- your missing the point mate :S i know all that, my question was why was Lucifer used in the BoM and still being used today if its a miss translation.

[pam]

and please people, don't keep telling others to pray about everything to get answers

One of the basic things in the LDS religion is to pray for answers.

Take a look at James 1:5

[marts1]

Little wonder your having trouble with an answer like that concerning prayer. Won't get far at all without it.

[TonkRogerio]

Pam, praying is the foundation of getting answers but I'm sure you know God will not put the answers on your lap, you have to search for them.

like praying for a job, I'm sure God wont make people line up outside your house to offer you a job, you have to seek, same goes for answers.

[Connie]

praying is just a partial answer, seeking is the other part

I agree. They have to go hand in hand. "Study it out in your mind and then ask if it be right." (D&C 9:8)

It may just be me, but some of us have a harder time with the prayer part. So it's nice to be reminded of it. Don't know why seeking is easier for me but it is.

[TonkRogerio]

connie, yeah same for me, I'm very much into using my own brain to gather information and I'm glad cause in this case it payed off, i totally get it now!!

[TonkRogerio]

Pam please don't debate about this with me :S i gave you two pieces of evidence how prayer + action together = result.

You have yet to give me 1 -.- unless you mean the reference you just gave me but there is a million other references which state you need to search all over the bible, BoM and DnC

for crying out laud, even the missionaries when they first teach someone hand them a BoM and ask them to read, pray, ponder then pray asking if its right, if it was just prayer then it would just be...prayer, no book of Mormon, no pondering, no nothing, just pray for everything....(i got no fooood, pray, i got no money!!!! pray, i got no nothing, pray -.-)