Lucifer as Pre-Fallen Name of Satan

[Tsuzuki]

We all know who we're talking about.

The Savior, right? (2 Peter 1:19)

[David T]

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

D&C 68:4 is one of those scriptures which is so often removed from its context to apply to things it was never meant to apply to.

1 MY servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them.

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth

[Lightbearer]

I suppose arguing the point with you is like trying to convert Sandra Tanner or Walter Martin to the Church (almost impossible). It is interesting to note that you are so passionate about this subject. What do you suggest we should call Lucifer? I think it would be very expensive to perform a "literary cleansing" of our manuals and books and our Conference reports... all to satisfy a "scholarly claim" with NO REVELATION to do so. Perhaps next time we can argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Regards,

LIGHTBEARER

[David T]

I suppose arguing the point with you is like trying to convert Sandra Tanner or Walter Martin to the Church (almost impossible). It is interesting to note that you are so passionate about this subject. What do you suggest we should call Lucifer? I think it would be very expensive to perform a "literary cleansing" of our manuals and books and our Conference reports... all to satisfy a "scholarly claim" with NO REVELATION to do so. Perhaps next time we can argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Regards,

LIGHTBEARER

Jesus seems to be okay calling him Satan, both in the NT, and in the D&C and the Book of Moses. If it's good enough for Jesus...

[Tsuzuki]

Jesus seems to be okay calling him Satan, both in the NT, and in the D&C and the Book of Moses. If it's good enough for Jesus...

"The Adversary" also works.

[Nofear]

"The Adversary" also works.

That is far and away my favorite term.

[Ron Beron]

I suppose arguing the point with you is like trying to convert Sandra Tanner or Walter Martin to the Church (almost impossible). It is interesting to note that you are so passionate about this subject. What do you suggest we should call Lucifer? I think it would be very expensive to perform a "literary cleansing" of our manuals and books and our Conference reports... all to satisfy a "scholarly claim" with NO REVELATION to do so. Perhaps next time we can argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Regards,

LIGHTBEARER

Why give it a name? Naming someone gives power to the element behind it. How about "he who shall not be named"...maybe Voldemort.

[Darth J]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. He is saying that there is no revelation that "Lucifer" was the devil's actual, given name before he fell. "Lucifer" is a name-title that has been traditionally applied to him.

The bigger point is not trivial: treating folk traditions as a "fact" that God has made known through revelation.

While it is quite clear from The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that Jesus Christ is Yaweh/Jehovah, the God of ancient Israel, the Old and New Testaments are not consistent in their usage of the name-titles Elohim and Jehovah. In these scriptures, Jehovah sometimes refers to the deity that Mormons would recognize as Jesus Christ, and other times refers to the One (capital intentional) whom Mormons would recognize as God the Father. Similarly, sometimes Elohim refers to the Father, sometimes to the One Mormons would think of as Jesus Christ, and sometimes to "the gods," which Mormons would recognize as the Godhead or even angels in some contexts.

The point is that it is by custom and usage, not revelation, that Mormons have come to think of "Elohim" as the Father, "Jehovah" as the Savior, and "Lucifer" as the devil. Jehovah/Yaweh is the name that the premortal Jesus used to identify Himself to ancient prophets ("I am that I am"). It does not necessarily follow that Yaweh/Jehovah is His actual proper name. We don't know the Father's actual proper name, either. "Elohim" is a name-title.

The temple endowment does not "reveal" that these names are the actual given names of these personages, including Lucifer. We could have a whole bunch of threads about the folk mythology that has come out of the temple endowment (e.g., a great many Mormons think that the new name you get was your actual given name in the pre-mortal existence). The story presented in the temple endowment is an allegory, not a literal "history" of what happened in the Garden of Eden and immediately afterward. The endowment is a morality play to explain the pre-mortal existence, the reason for mortal life and the Atonement, and exaltation.

[Nofear]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. He is saying that there is no revelation that "Lucifer" was the devil's actual, given name before he fell. "Lucifer" is a name-title that has been traditionally applied to him.

The bigger point is not trivial: treating folk traditions as a "fact" that God has made known through revelation.

While it is quite clear from The Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants that Jesus Christ is Yaweh/Jehovah, the God of ancient Israel, the Old and New Testaments are not consistent in their usage of the name-titles Elohim and Jehovah. In these scriptures, Jehovah sometimes refers to the deity that Mormons would recognize as Jesus Christ, and other times refers to the One (capital intentional) whom Mormons would recognize as God the Father. Similarly, sometimes Elohim refers to the Father, sometimes to the One Mormons would think of as Jesus Christ, and sometimes to "the gods," which Mormons would recognize as the Godhead or even angels in some contexts.

The point is that it is by custom and usage, not revelation, that Mormons have come to think of "Elohim" as the Father, "Jehovah" as the Savior, and "Lucifer" as the devil. Jehovah/Yaweh is the name that the premortal Jesus used to identify Himself to ancient prophets ("I am that I am"). It does not necessarily follow that Yaweh/Jehovah is His actual proper name. We don't know the Father's actual proper name, either. "Elohim" is a name-title.

The temple endowment does not "reveal" that these names are the actual given names of these personages, including Lucifer. We could have a whole bunch of threads about the folk mythology that has come out of the temple endowment (e.g., a great many Mormons think that the new name you get was your actual given name in the pre-mortal existence). The story presented in the temple endowment is an allegory, not a literal "history" of what happened in the Garden of Eden and immediately afterward. The endowment is a morality play to explain the pre-mortal existence, the reason for mortal life and the Atonement, and exaltation.

I ultimately agree with this position. Besides, all our pre-mortal names are probably spoken in Adamic (folk speculation) and would sound strange to our English ears.

[rodheadlee]

Why give it a name? Naming someone gives power to the element behind it. How about "he who shall not be named"...maybe Voldemort.

This is exactly what I call him. He who shall not be named.