Lucifer as Pre-Fallen Name of Satan

[Tsuzuki]

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.

As a self identified Luciferian, I see something wrong with it.

[David T]

The application and interpretation of the story isn't the topic of the OP. As I said before, Ezekiel tells the same story (as does Psalm 82), and neither use the term which is translated as Lucifer. My argument is that the revelations do not apply the term as a specific name-title for the pre-fallen individual Devil.

Is it a useful designation in modern discourse? Sure it can be. And in that case, I'll concede, and back off.

But I see still see no evidence that Lucifer is designated in revelations as a specific name-title for the specifically pre-fallen devil. It's a (harmless) Tradition, and nothing more.

Can we at least agree there? Or is there still someone who wants to insist, and show conclusively, that it's From God's Lips Revelation?

For the record, this all started because I was doing a study of D&C 76 this morning, and noted how the term was used in its context as a descriptive aside by Joseph (not as a recording of something he heard), and then did a search to see where else the term appeared in Scripture, and in what context.

[mapman]

The application and interpretation of the story isn't the topic of the OP. As I said before, Ezekiel tells the same story (as does Psalm 82), and neither use the term which is translated as Lucifer. My argument is that the revelations do not apply the term as a specific name-title for the pre-fallen individual Devil.

Is it a useful designation in modern discourse? Sure it can be. And in that case, I'll concede, and back off.

But I see still see no evidence that Lucifer is designated in revelations as a specific name-title for the specifically pre-fallen devil. It's a (harmless) Tradition, and nothing more.

Can we at least agree there? Or is there still someone who wants to insist, and show conclusively, that it's From God's Lips Revelation?

I can agree that it isn't ever stated that Lucifer was actually his pre-fallen name, just as Jehovah wasn't really Jesus' premortal name.

[Lightbearer]

The application and interpretation of the story isn't the topic of the OP. As I said before, Ezekiel tells the same story (as does Psalm 82), and neither use the term which is translated as Lucifer. My argument is that the revelations do not apply the term as a specific name-title for the pre-fallen individual Devil.

Is it a useful designation in modern discourse? Sure it can be. And in that case, I'll concede, and back off.

But I see still see no evidence that Lucifer is designated in revelations as a specific name-title for the specifically pre-fallen devil. It's a (harmless) Tradition, and nothing more.

Can we at least agree there? Or is there still someone who wants to insist, and show conclusively, that it's From God's Lips Revelation?

For the record, this all started because I was doing a study of D&C 76 this morning, and noted how the term was used in its context as a descriptive aside by Joseph (not as a recording of something he heard), and then did a search to see where else the term appeared in Scripture, and in what context.

Regarding D&C 76, how do you know it was not something he heard? Where you there? Can it be that your supposition is greater than the judgment of all the General Authorities of the Church combined? Why do you suppose it was placed in the D&C and why not corrected? You still have not proven your unjustified objection and that this is a "harmless tradition." I guess I just do not understand what your complaint is about, the modern prophets refer to Satan as Lucifer, the Temple, the manuals of the Church do the same, every leader and every teacher in every lesson I have ever heard or taught on the subject has referred to him as such. We do not have to be beholden to written scripture alone, we have modern revelation which is capable of dispelling any error or incorrect tradition. That was the point of the restoration in the first place. It is not that this is some unsettled mystery that is only speculation, and why does it need to be "from God's lips revelation"?

[David T]

Regarding D&C 76, how do you know it was not something he heard? Where you there?

Context. Where is it ever claimed that he did hear it?

Can it be that your supposition is greater than the judgment of all the General Authorities of the Church combined?

The General Authorities follow a harmless linguistic tradition. I conceded that that's fine. They're generally not historians nor linguists, and use terms instantly recognizable to teach the doctrine clearly and succinctly. I think the Lord accepts it, even if not technically accurate.

Why do you suppose it was placed in the D&C and why not corrected?

It was part of Joseph explaining according to his understanding who and what he saw. The application is not incorrect or destructive.

You still have not proven your unjustified objection and that this is a "harmless tradition."

To you, at least. that's evident.

I guess I just do not understand what your complaint is about,

I'm sorry.

the modern prophets refer to Satan as Lucifer, the Temple, the manuals of the Church do the same, every leader and every teacher in every lesson I have ever heard or taught on the subject has referred to him as such.

Which was not the specific objection or point I was making.

We do not have to be beholden to written scripture alone,

So do you concede the usage of the specific proper name as a designation for the pre-fallen devil is not scripturally based?

we have modern revelation which is capable of dispelling any error or incorrect tradition.

Unless it's a harmless matter of terminology without any effect on our salvation, and not worth correcting.

That was the point of the restoration in the first place.

No, the point of the restoration was bring back the knowledge needed for Exaltation, and to bring back the authority to make it possible.

It is not that this is some unsettled mystery that is only speculation, and why does it need to be "from God's lips revelation"?

I think you're misunderstanding my point, and in fact may be going to support it. Some individuals defend Tradition as fervently as they do Revelation, and feel the need, at times, to equate the two to reconcile their actions/usage.

What I conceded is that the usage is acceptable. But, that it is not based in something Revealed. Your defense seems to be that it doesn't have to be revealed to be fervently defended.

[Obiwan]

Uh... You do know that Satan and his Angels can look like an "Angel of Light" don't you....???

Thus, who are you to say he actually "wasn't" a Light Bearer???

[David T]

Uh... You do know that Satan and his Angels can look like an "Angel of Light" don't you....???

Thus, who are you to say he actually "wasn't" a Light Bearer???

Not the point, and not something I claimed.

[Jason]

Absence of a specific published revelation on so minor an item is certainly not evidence that Joseph was uninspired in identifying Satan with Lucifer.

[Deborah]

From gospel topics on the official church website:

Satan, also called the adversary or the devil, is the enemy of all righteousness and of those who seek to follow God. He is a spirit son of God who was once an angel "in authority in the presence of God" (D&C 76:25; see also Isaiah 14:12; D&C 76:26

[David T]

From gospel topics on the official church website:

And from the Bible Dictionary in LDS scriptures:

In reading this thread I'm having a hard time understanding what the issue is. Talk about straining at gnats. I guess nackhadlow should contact the prophet so they can correct our entire curricula.

"Apparently Lucifer is the name of the devil before his rebellion and fall."

I think what was demonstrated is that this isn't found anywhere in scripture, but is Accepted Tradition, Catholic Style.

The Bible Dictionary isn't scripture, or revealed. It says as much: "This dictionary has been designed to provide teachers and students with a concise collection of definitions and explanations of items that are mentioned in or are otherwise associated with the Bible. It is based primarily upon the biblical text, supplemented by information from the other books of scripture accepted as standard works by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not intended as an official or revealed endorsement by the Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth."

None of the scriptures cited properly state the 'apparent' fact. (I have other issues with the Bible Dictionary, such as its non-scriptural and non-referenced teaching of bloodless pre-fall bodies).

[David T]

Absence of a specific published revelation on so minor an item is certainly not evidence that Joseph was uninspired in identifying Satan with Lucifer.

I never claimed he was uninspired in doing so. I believe I said he correctly linked the 'Angel in authority' which he saw with the tradition recorded in Isaiah.

Again, the issue was the specific claim that it's the 'Pre-fall/pre-rebellion name of the Devil'. It's a commonly repeated claim that I have never seen backed up properly with Revelation.

Look, I fully recognize this isn't a big deal. I've even referred to it as nit-picking. Which is sort of why I wonder why people are so vehemently defending an admittedly 'minor' linguistic tradition that doesn't have a scriptural foundation. It is an interesting case study.

[RBeron]

Pssst, the temple??

I don't believe the temple is canonized doctrine. Doctrine, perhaps, but canonized, no.

[RBeron]

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?

It is far more likely to was conflating an Ugaritic legend of two brothers who contended togeter...From the NET Bible

What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called

[Ron Beron]

It is far more likely to was conflating an Ugaritic legend of two brothers who contended togeter...From the NET Bible

The fact that LDS use Lucifer to define the personification of ha-satan has probably little to do with actual naming and more to do with traditional usage of names.

The poster above is Ron Beron not RBeron. I was trying to use Google Chrome and it messed me up. If the mods want to purge the system of said poster "RBeron" they may.

[Ron Beron]

Why do we still do this? Do you think there's any chance of ever moving away from using the term as a proper name?

I am not a firm believer in the satan, Lucifer or the Devil, but I realize that we have personified the epitome of evil as an actual person. I think this is human nature to put a "face" on that which disturbs us the most. And if we use a face then why not a name? The term satan was never used as a proper name for the evil one, but was simply used as a special advocate of the Father in the Divine Council. The Devil is simply a Greek term for a Babylonian creature assimilated into Jewish belief after the diaspora. If we are serious about calling this being what is only referenced in common vernacular then we would probably call him Hilel or the Lightbearer as referenced in Isaiah.

[Cold Steel]

...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.

Lehi's reading of Isaiah was most likely what first led him to conclude that Lucifer was a fallen angel. Later, as he and Nephi received revelation, they came to a much fuller understanding of Lucifer's origins.

Okay, so Lucifer may not be Satan's given premortal name any more than Elohim is the given name of the Father. Still, the term "name," as defined, is: "A word or words by which an entity is designated and distinguished from others." Language is the servant, not the master, and all that's required is agreement, which we pretty much have with the rest of the Christian world. A better question might be, is our Lucifer the same Lucifer of the evangelicals...or is he a "different" Lucifer?

According to some scholars, Lucifer really applies to a Babylonian king and this is the reference in Isaiah. But this may be merely an assumption. The Lord makes several references to Lucifer being a "son of the morning," and having fallen from heaven. Thus, Isaiah says: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit." (2 Nephi 24)

The exegesis should take into account:

• Lucifer is fallen from heaven;
  
• he is cut down (or thrust down) to the ground, or Earth;
  
• he weakens the nations;
  
• attempts to ascend into heaven;
  
• exalt his throne above the stars of God ("stars" representing the host of heaven, one-third of which fell, according to John in Revelation);
  
• more ascension imagery, above the heights of the clouds; and
  
• his aspiration to be like the Most High. And lastly,
  
• he is associated with hell and with the pit.
  

This is clearly the Devil that's being spoken of. Any application to the Babylonian king may be mere speculation on the part of scholars, like Isaiah 53, which we associate with Christ, but which Jewish tradition associates with the nation of Israel.

Jesus' true name was Joshua, yet the Greek term suits us just fine.

To me, it's quite clear that Isaiah and Nephi associated Lucifer with Satan. True, a previous verse reads: "And it shall come to pass in that day, that thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say: How hath the oppressor ceased, the golden city ceased!"

A proverb is a saying that often has metaphorical properties.

The scripture, in describing the king, states: "All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols; the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee." This seems to be the end of the king, yet Isaiah continues:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north; I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and shall consider thee, and shall say, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; and made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; and opened not the house of his prisoners? (Isaiah 14)

We have no way of knowing, but this seems to refer wholly to Satan. Perhaps Isaiah departed from his text to add these metaphorical elements -- in short, likening the king to Lucifer rather than identifying the king as Lucifer. In other words, it might be like addressing someone in our time -- a political or military figure -- and then suddenly quoting Hamlet. Readers familiar with the text would know to apply it, but others wouldn't. Again, I can't prove this is the case, but there are too many elements we can understand; and it would be appropriate in a proverb to make that kind of a jump.

Ezekiel does a similar thing regarding Pharaoh:

Son of man, speak unto Pharaoh king of Egypt, and to his multitude; Whom art thou like in thy greatness? Behold, [Assyria] was a cedar in Lebanon with fair branches, and with a shadowing shroud, and of an high stature; and his top was among the thick boughs. The waters made him great, the deep set him up on high with her rivers running round about his plants, and sent her little rivers unto all the trees of the field. Therefore his height was exalted above all the trees of the field, and his boughs were multiplied, and his branches became long because of the multitude of waters, when he shot forth. All the fowls of heaven made their nests in his boughs, and under his branches did all the beasts of the field bring forth their young, and under his shadow dwelt all great nations. (Ezek. 31)

Here the prophet speaks of Pharaoh and immediately applies the metaphor of Assyria as a mighty cedar in Lebanon. Even though he applies it to Pharaoh, he's still speaking of Assyria and cedars. In the same way, Isaiah could easily be applying the metaphor of Lucifer to the Babylonian king, especially since Lehi identified Lucifer with a fallen angel, or star.

.

[Ron Beron]

There are so many personified names and titles being bantered around here that the clear obstacle is being ignored. The facts in hand,

1. There is no reference to pre-exilic satan as a personified being. None whatsoever...zilch, nada... Given so we can only understand Isaiah in the sense it which it is written. If it is post-exilic it could refer to a heavenly demonic presence, but if pre-exilic it is in reference to a Ugaritic myth motif made in comparison to the Babylonia king.

2. The word devil refers to a demonic being, not the Numero Uno itself.

3. Lucifer is a medieval reference to the Isaiah Hilel and as such brings with the rich conjunctions of Hebrew, Greek, and Babylonian myth.

4. JS's usage of Lucifer is in reference only to the concept of evil which he understood. It stands unique and separate from the OT and NT concepts of Satan and Devil.

[Sargon]

I'm throwing my hat in with nackhadlow.

There is some firm ground for arguing that we know what Jesus' pre-mortal name was....but there is not firm ground for arguing that we know what Satan's pre-mortal, or pre-fall, name was.

[Ron Beron]

I'm throwing my hat in with nackhadlow.

There is some firm ground for arguing that we know what Jesus' pre-mortal name was....but there is not firm ground for arguing that we know what Satan's pre-mortal, or pre-fall, name was.

Make that a third vote.

[Tsuzuki]

Make that a third vote.

If it wasn't already clear before, I'm in on this too.

[Chris Smith]

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,

[Obiwan]

Not the point, and not something I claimed.

What....???

You claimed that "Lucifer" was an inaccurate name for the devil in the pre-mortal life because it means "Light whatever" etc.

It specifically addresses what you claimed. In other words, "Lucifer" could have very well been Satan's name in the pre-mortal realm since the devil and his Angles are able to look like beings of "light" even now.

So, what's your problem then??? Or do you just not get my point?

[Ron Beron]

What....???

You claimed that "Lucifer" was an inaccurate name for the devil in the pre-mortal life because it means "Light whatever" etc.

It specifically addresses what you claimed. In other words, "Lucifer" could have very well been Satan's name in the pre-mortal realm since the devil and his Angles are able to look like beings of "light" even now.

So, what's your problem then??? Or do you just not get my point?

Why so serious?

[Lightbearer]

I think you're misunderstanding my point, and in fact may be going to support it. Some individuals defend Tradition as fervently as they do Revelation, and feel the need, at times, to equate the two to reconcile their actions/usage.

What I conceded is that the usage is acceptable. But, that it is not based in something Revealed. Your defense seems to be that it doesn't have to be revealed to be fervently defended.

Are you saying that revelation must be written to be revelation? That disagrees with the scripture:

(D&C 68:4) "And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation."

So to me the fact that so many prophets and apostles have used this term makes it more than just tradition. Sometimes tradition extends from revelation, sort of like the visit of Peter, James, and John to Joseph and Oliver was not recorded yet still occurred and was a revelation.

[Jason]

Again, I really don't see the problem in referring to the devil (pre-fallen or in his current state) as Lucifer. We all know who we're talking about.