Lucifer as Pre-Fallen Name of Satan

[David T]

In the standard works, in English, the term Lucifer is used three times.

Once, as an incomplete translation of Isaiah 14:2

Next, as quoting that Isaiah verse in 2 Nephi 24:12

Third, and finally, as a designation Joseph interpreted and applied to the events he witnessed in summarizing the events he and Sidney witnessed in D&C 76:26, and not as a revealed name declared to him.

The term is also used as one of several appellations to the figure in the Temple drama.

It's common knowledge that Lucifer is the latin term translating the Hebrew light-bearer, or day-star. Its original use by Isaiah ties in with the ancient imagery of stars equated with the gods/kings/angels.

Nevertheless, it has been common in our publications to designate Lucifer as the proper name of Satan before he was cast out of heaven. (See even the new Gospel Principles, which says, "Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying,

[Lightbearer]

In the standard works, in English, the term Lucifer is used three times.

Once, as an incomplete translation of Isaiah 14:2

Next, as quoting that Isaiah verse in 2 Nephi 24:12

Third, and finally, as a designation Joseph interpreted and applied to the events he witnessed in summarizing the events he and Sidney witnessed in D&C 76:26, and not as a revealed name declared to him.

The term is also used as one of several appellations to the figure in the Temple drama.

It's common knowledge that Lucifer is the latin term translating the Hebrew light-bearer, or day-star. Its original use by Isaiah ties in with the ancient imagery of stars equated with the gods/kings/angels.

Nevertheless, it has been common in our publications to designate Lucifer as the proper name of Satan before he was cast out of heaven. (See even the new Gospel Principles, which says, "Satan, who was called Lucifer, also came, saying,

[Jason]

I see no solid evidence that Lucifer is not the pre-fallen name of Satan, and it is apparent that the Church teaches that it was. Where's the problem?

[volgadon]

Seeing as names anciently were often titles and Lucifer is a translation of Heylel, I don't see why this is much of an issue.

[Jason]

Right. We know very well that Jesus Christ was never called by the English name "Jesus Christ" during his lifetime, and that Jacob didn't actually write "aduieu". That doesn't mean we can't call him Jesus Christ or that "aduieu" is not an accurate representation of what Jacob was saying.

[David T]

Are you suggesting that D&C 76:26 is wrong?

No, I'm saying it doesn't do what many think it does. There is no divine revelation of the name. Joseph witnesses an event, and then describes it, and applied three familiar scriptural appellations commonly applied to the Adversary. (Lucifer, That Old Serpent, the Devil). He even quotes the language from Isaiah 76:26

Plus, there is no scripture that teaches that this was a premortal title applied to the figure, as distinct from the satan title. It appears to me to be nothing more than a cultural tradition that has worked itself into the mainstream.

[Lightbearer]

No, I'm saying it doesn't do what many think it does. There is no divine revelation of the name. Joseph witnesses an event, and then describes it, and applied three familiar scriptural appellations commonly applied to the Adversary. (Lucifer, That Old Serpent, the Devil). He even quotes the language from Isaiah 76:26

Plus, there is no scripture that teaches that this was a premortal title applied to the figure, as distinct from the satan title. It appears to me to be nothing more than a cultural tradition that has worked itself into the mainstream.

It appears to me that you have absolutely no proof of your idea that this is an inaccurate name use. What do you base your contention on, yes I am calling a CFR.

[David T]

Right. We know very well that Jesus Christ was never called by the English name "Jesus Christ" during his lifetime, and that Jacob didn't actually write "aduieu". That doesn't mean we can't call him Jesus Christ or that "aduieu" is not an accurate representation of what Jacob was saying.

There's a diference. Jesus Christ is an anglicanization of an actual name/title - Yeshua the Meshiach -> Iesus the Christos -> Jesus the Christ. The Lord, in modern revelation, has used the title Himself.

Adieu is a translation of a phrase.

Lucifer has taken a symbol (a light-bearer, star), which following a couple rounds of Translation and tradition has been turned into a proper name, which has then been given a specific designation (the name of Satan before His Fall), which has no precedent in revelation.

I'll clarify. I think it's fully appropriate to apply the Isaiah passage to the satan figure. But it is incorrect to point out that it calls him by name, and establishes it as his specific Pre-Fallen name. I guess that's the pet peeve I have.

It appears to me that you have absolutely no proof of your idea that this is an inaccurate name use. What do you base your contention on, yes I am calling a CFR.

2 Peter 1:19, in Latin, uses the word Lucifer for Day Star as well:

Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem: cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucern

[BCSpace]

Sitting Bull, Dances with Wolves, Light Bearer, Day Star...what is the problem?

[3DOP]

It appears to me that you have absolutely no proof of your idea that this is an inaccurate name use. What do you base your contention on, yes I am calling a CFR.

Hi Lightbearer. I agree that this does not seem to be a terribly important matter of contention. It would appear that St. Jerome may have orginally been the source of this belief that Lucifer was Satan's name before his fall. It is not a position that is condemned by the Catholic Church, but it is generally agreed upon that Jerome was in error:

The Syriac version and the version of Aquila derive the Hebrew noun helel from the verb yalal, "to lament"; St. Jerome agrees with them (In Isaiah 1.14), and makes Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel who must lament the loss of his original glory bright as the morning star. In Christian tradition this meaning of Lucifer has prevailed; the Fathers maintain that Lucifer is not the proper name of the devil, but denotes only the state from which he has fallen (Petavius, De Angelis, III, iii, 4).

---Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm

I understand the Encyclopedia to be saying that the meaning of Lucifer as the "lamenting bright star, etc." correctly prevails in Christian circles, but that it is not considered a name by the Fathers, as Jerome apparently thought, but rather a description of the fallen one.

[David T]

It appears to me that you have absolutely no proof of your idea that this is an inaccurate name use. What do you base your contention on, yes I am calling a CFR.

And now, I'm asking you for a CFR for a revelation that presents Lucifer as a specific Name of Satan, distinct from the other names, to be applied to the pre-Fallen figure.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

And now, I'm asking you for a CFR for a revelation that presents Lucifer as a specific Name of Satan, distinct from the other names, to be applied to the pre-Fallen figure.

Pssst, the temple??

[David T]

Pssst, the temple??

Multiple titles are used for him in the presentation (as I already noted) , and none specifically singled out as a Pre-fallen designation, although I do recognize the context of its use.

[Jason]

There's a diference. Jesus Christ is an anglicanization of an actual name/title - Yeshua the Meshiach -> Iesus the Christos -> Jesus the Christ. The Lord, in modern revelation, has used the title Himself.

Adieu is a translation of a phrase.

Lucifer has taken a symbol (a light-bearer, star), which following a couple rounds of Translation and tradition has been turned into a proper name, which has then been given a specific designation (the name of Satan before His Fall), which has no precedent in revelation.

Yeah, I'm still not seeing a huge difference between the two, nor any real problem.

Do you think that when we say "Lucifer" to other Mormons that there is room for confusion as to who we're talking about? Do you think he would be confused if we addressed him as such?

I'll clarify. I think it's fully appropriate to apply the Isaiah passage to the satan figure. But it is incorrect to point out that it calls him by name, and establishes it as his specific Pre-Fallen name. I guess that's the pet peeve I have.

That's a pretty insignificant nit to pick.

[Lightbearer]

While this name was associated with Satan before his rebellion, I do recognize that the term can be an honorable one, hence that is why I use the screen name "Lightbearer" I don't use it in the common association with the fallen angel who became Satan, but I prefer the positive connotation of one being the "bearer of light and truth" or "day star" or "son of the morning." I just like the name that is my purpose in using it. I believe the use in the Church is from the Isaiah reference and more specifically Joseph Smith's direct descriptive usage in D&C 76. I cannot help but think it correct (at least I am in good company with many general authorities who use the term) again I repeat:

(D&C 76:25-29) "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

[Tarski]

I hate to do it but I am going to quote a relevant part of wikipedia's entry on Lucifer.

The Book of Isaiah has the following passage:

When the Lord has given you rest from your pain and turmoil and the hard service with which you were made to serve, you will take up this taunt against the king of Babylon: How the oppressor has ceased! How his insolence has ceased!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

While this name was associated with Satan before his rebellion, I do recognize that the term can be an honorable one, hence that is why I use the screen name "Lightbearer" I don't use it in the common association with the fallen angel who became Satan, but I prefer the positive connotation of one being the "bearer of light and truth" or "day star" or "son of the morning." I just like the name that is my purpose in using it. I believe the use in the Church is from the Isaiah reference and more specifically Joseph Smith's direct descriptive usage in D&C 76. I cannot help but think it correct (at least I am in good company with many general authorities who use the term) again I repeat:Note it does say "a son of the morning" (indicating other sons of the morning?) That is my answer to your CFR. I have yet to see yours? Perhaps you do not think it is good enough, but that is where I get it and also countless conference talks by various General Authorities that use the name title in that way.

There has been some interesting speculation on what "Sons of the Morming" mean.

What an interesting thread this has developed into.

[mapman]

I hate to do it but I am going to quote a relevant part of wikipedia's entry on Lucifer.

Ah, wikipedia. Even if it does refer to the king of Babylon (you have yet to convince me), I think we can all agree that Isaiah isn't always literal or clear about what he means. I don't think Bible critics are the best source for understanding Isaiah. Is there any reason why this couldn't be reference to the king of Babylon as well as Satan, the king of Babylon in a non-literal sense?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I hate to do it but I am going to quote a relevant part of wikipedia's entry on Lucifer.

You hate to quote Wikipedia? Or that you hate to get into religious discussions.

[Lachoneus]

I hate to do it but I am going to quote a relevant part of wikipedia's entry on Lucifer.

And maybe we could look at a relevant part of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

In LDS discourse, the term "devil" denotes anyone who promotes the cause of evil, but it is especially applied to those unembodied spirits who rebelled against God in the premortal life and were cast down from heaven to this earth. The devil, who leads them, is also known by the personal names of Lucifer in the premortal existence and Satan since being cast down.The name Lucifer means "light bearer" in Latin and is a translation of the Hebrew Heylel ben Shakhar, which means "herald son of dawn" or "morning star." In the premortal life, Lucifer was an angel having authority in the presence of God. He played a prominent role in the Council in Heaven. After the Father in Heaven offered the plan of righteousness to help his children become as he is, Lucifer countered with an alternative plan.

Encyclopedia of Mormonism, "Devils"

If you want to stop the usage of "Lucifer" as a personal name, you might want to contact the editors of the encyclopedia. I am sure they would be interested in hearing from you.

[David T]

Ah, wikipedia. Even if it does refer to the king of Babylon (you have yet to convince me),

4

[Joseph Antley]

No, I don't believe that Satan was referred to with the same group of phonemes that make up the corrupted-Latin word "Lucifer." But I see nothing wrong with us using that name now to distinguish him.

[Tsuzuki]

Do you think it's saying "Until Satan arise in your hearts?"

I like to think so.

All joking aside, I completely agree with you. It's also a pet peeve of mine. (See my current member title.)

[Jason]

Isaiah is likening the King of Babylon to the ancient story of the fallen gods (stars). Ezekiel uses the same story, and applies it to the Adam figure being cast off from the Mountain of God/Eden as a fallen priest/king. (see Ezekiel 28). It's also related to Psalm 82.

Isn't it possible that the ancient story of the fallen gods (stars) is in fact a distorted re-telling of Adam's knowledge of Lucifer and the 1/3rd's fall?

In other words, isn't it possible that Isaiah is in fact likening the King of Babylon to Lucifer/Satan?

[Joseph Antley]

In other words, isn't it possible that Isaiah is in fact likening the King of Babylon to Lucifer/Satan?

Nephi certainly thought so.