It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Mormon FAQ (by dragonsdemesne)

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   
The point is ...maybe 2 women could even like each other in a polygamy. But I'm talking about broken hearts!!!-loving just one man and a man loving just one woman...I can't figure out why you don't get it.

Obviously in OT times the woman was well below the man in status in most cultures...thus treated with a distancing as to their feelings..and I'm not talking about giving them respect..people respect their dogs and cats..

when I was a little girl (obviously female) I couldn't figure out the saying--"Oh, too bad so and so didn't have a boy", commenting on a newborn baby..(not in regard to taking over the family business or inheritance issues, but that they are considered under the man, therefore, are unequal)...I was appalled, being 4 years old..considered it ridiculous, and incredulous.




posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   

But I'm talking about broken hearts!!!-loving just one man and a man loving just one woman...I can't figure out why you don't get it.


Ok, apparently I must have misunderstood your last post; I thought I knew what you were asking, but I guess I didn't. Are you concerned that the man in polygamist relationships might have treated one woman better than the rest, or treated them all poorly? Are you concerned that the man would ignore the women's opinions? I don't think this happened very often; like I said before, lots of polygamist marriages worked out, and everyone was happy in them, but of course there were exceptions.


Obviously in OT times the woman was well below the man in status in most cultures...thus treated with a distancing as to their feelings..and I'm not talking about giving them respect..people respect their dogs and cats..


Yes, in OT times, women were treated as below men. They were essentially purchased from their fathers.


from www.dictionary.com
dowry

(mohar; i.e., price paid for a wife, Gen. 34:12; Ex. 22:17; 1 Sam. 18:25), a
nuptial present; some gift, as a sum of money, which the bridegroom offers to the father of his bride as a satisfaction before he can receive her. Jacob had no dowry to give for his wife, but he gave his services (Gen. 29:18; 30:20; 34:12).


If you are concerned that women were treated like property in this way by Mormons, no this is not the way it happened. Women were treated much better than this. In most marriages, the women were considered equals to the man in polygamy.


when I was a little girl (obviously female) I couldn't figure out the saying--"Oh, too bad so and so didn't have a boy", commenting on a newborn baby..(not in regard to taking over the family business or inheritance issues, but that they are considered under the man, therefore, are unequal)...I was appalled, being 4 years old..considered it ridiculous, and incredulous.


I am 23 years old, and I think that saying is ridiculous and incredulous, also. But I just don't think it applies to Mormon polygamy. I've never heard anybody, whether mormon or not, say that it would have been better to have a boy than a girl.

I think it looks (to me, at least) that you are very concerned over equality issues in polygamy. From what I've read, that in most cases of Mormon polygamy, the woman was considered equal to the man. I'm sure there were some men who were jerks and treated their wife(s) like crap, just as there are men who are jerks today, but on the whole I think the men did love their wife(s) as equals.


I can't figure out why you don't get it.

If I'm still not getting it, just let me know. I or someone else will hopefully be able to help.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Sorry..I guess I can't explain it any better than I already did..except I wondered how a man would feel if his wife had 2 husbands...

But thank you for answering!

[edit on 9/11/2005 by mercury19]



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:31 PM
link   
"Some classes of the human family are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind."
BRIGHAM YOUNG

"If a white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."
BRIGHAM YOUNG


"...(Cain) became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do while time endures. Millions of souls have come into the world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of priesthood and the fulness of the blessing of the gospel."
jOSEPH FIELDING SMITH



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Ras Dedan: You haven't asked a question here, but I will comment on those quotes, anyway. The two from Brigham Young, are found in the Journal of Discourses, which contain pretty much everything he said at almost any time. Brigham Young has said a lot of things where it is not clear whether he is speaking his personal opinion or speaking for the church as a whole. As for me, I despite racism in all its forms. Unfortunately, Brigham lived in a time where black people were treated like subhumans, and they had much fewer opportunities to succeed in life. Obviously, social conditions played a huge role in what most people perceived the black people to be, and unfortunately this point of view was all too common at the time, amongst all peoples. Really, there isn't much excuse for what Brigham said here, and there isn't any point trying to justify it. Nobody is perfect; everyone has flaws, and this was one of Brigham's.

I do not know the context of the third quote by JFS. Again, there isn't much point trying to justify the quote; it says what it says.

Here are some links that may be of interest:

www.jefflindsay.com... (Jeff Lindsay is a Mormon who researches into some of the more difficult questions to answer in Mormon history)

www.fairlds.org... (a talk given by Marvin Perkins, a black Mormon, in 2002)

www.blacklds.org... (a website that contains various stuff by, for, and about black mormons)

www.ldsgenesisgroup.org... (same sort of site as blacklds.org, but by a different group of people. The Genesis Group was founded with official sanction by the 1st presidency in 1971, whereas blacklds.org is relatively new and was created by individual members acting on their own initiative)



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Mormonism is considered to be a denomination of Christianity according to LDS members(so mormon = christian). Yet, as you said before, only people married in a Mormon temple can be married in heaven correct?

well, if I am a christian, and you are a christian, how come i am not allowed into your temple nor allowed to be married in your temple? This would keep me, a fellow christian, from being married in heaven, while you, a christian, could.

how come our "chirstians" our different?

---Pineapple

P.S. i do not mean these questions to flame, please tell me if you feel i am



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Yet, as you said before, only people married in a Mormon temple can be married in heaven correct?


Right. However, there is also the possibility of what is called 'vicarious temple work'. This includes stuff like baptism for the dead, but also proxy marriages and priesthood ordinations for those who have passed on but who died as a non-Mormon. So, for example, my grandma (a Mormon, still alive) and my grandpa (a Catholic, passed away) could eventually be 'sealed' (a Mormon word for temple marriage) by a living married Mormon couple, once my grandma passes away. (It can be done if both the deceased aren't Mormons, too; that was just a personal example)


well, if I am a christian, and you are a christian, how come i am not allowed into your temple nor allowed to be married in your temple?


Probably for the same reason I can't be the next pope, or become a religious minister in any other religion. Also, before one can go to a Mormon temple, one has to prove that they are worthy and ready in the eyes of God.

So if you live a good life, (Christian or otherwise) die, and a Mormon does your temple ordinances for you (and you choose to accept them in the afterlife) then you would be in exactly the same situation as a faithful Mormon would be. According to Mormon beliefs, in the Millennium, we will be doing an awful lot of temple work for people.

Let me know if you need more explanation (and I did not feel that was flaming, those were honest questions)



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I'm not claiming that all Mormons are racists and it does you great credit that you don't try to be an apologist for their statements,but there is an undoubted racist agenda in the foundation of the Mormon church.
Now it may well be that there was a prevailing racism in America at the time of Brigham Young and Joseph Smith but should a man of his position not be beyond prevailing attititudes which are so clearly lacking in validity.One of the sites you linked to claims it's just misinterpretation of the book of Moron,that leads to claims of racism but it's clearly not true.Like you said before their was a prevailing attitude of racism so attitudes like that could be gotten away with without much if any controversy.It seems fairly clear though that pressure increased on the Mormon leadership as time advanced and this forced a change of attitude.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 04:22 AM
link   

It seems fairly clear though that pressure increased on the Mormon leadership as time advanced and this forced a change of attitude.


I agree. But the church continues the purity front. Why wont the elders today just make it known that those statements were flaws of the individuals?

Because seemingly those individuals were making doctrine (blacks couldnt hold the priesthood) based on the prevailing racist attitudes.

I dont know about Cain and his seed. But I do know the 2nd article of faith and it states that "men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

Well this concept of Cain and his seed seems pretty contradictory to that statement made by Joseph Smith.

If they were just opinions, they should never have been doctrine. If they are doctrine, why did the doctrine change? Social pressure....?!

Its really a sad chapter in mormonism... oh well. Atleast its no more.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I've read a fair amount of books & internet articles & ATS posts on Mormons, and I've noticed that there is a lot of information out there that is just plain incorrect. I'm not talking about people who simply disagree with my opinion on religion (I'm mormon) but people who have basic historical or theological facts wrong concerning Mormonism.


That sort of thing often happens by the ignorant repetition of hearsay, but is nevertheless a pain for everyone. (I'm not a Mormon). An FAQ is a good idea, always remembering that most people repeating a given lie will not be the liar who originally manufactured it, but his dupes.

All the best,

Roger Pearse



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
In defense of Joseph Smith, I should say that I cannot recall ever reading a statement by him that could be construed as racist. He actually tried to run for president of the united states (he was killed before the election) and one of his key platforms was to have the federal government buy all the slaves from their owners and then free them. He did say a couple of times that the missionaries should not preach to slaves unless their owners allowed it, because they didn't want to anger their owners. (they had enough trouble as it was!)

It was primarily Brigham Young who brought about policies like denying priesthood to black people. Joseph Smith ordained several black men to the priesthood in his day. It's one of the reasons that of all the modern Mormon prophets, Brigham Young is probably my least favourite.



posted on Sep, 12 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I have a couple of questions in regard to the Mormon faith.

Is it a requirement of all Mormons to knock on doors etc and try and convert members of the public or is it only those who become missionaries?In Australia we seem to get a lot of young Americans coming to the door to "spread the word",I suppose it's a good test of faith because they get a lot of knock-backs along the way.

Also,I heard that Mormons can baptise you after you're dead,if your family requests it.Is this true?If so,what would be the point?

I look forward to your reply.



posted on Sep, 13 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Far Out Man: Your questions are good ones, and fortunately have fairly straightforward answers, so here goes:


Is it a requirement of all Mormons to knock on doors etc and try and convert members of the public or is it only those who become missionaries?


Any Mormon who is in good standing and of the proper age is permitted to serve a mission if they choose to. Men can go starting at age 19 and women at age 21. (I have no idea why the difference) Obviously, a missionary will be going from door to door to preach the Mormon faith.

A regular member however, or a person who has finished their mission, should be leaving the formal proselyting to the missionaries. It is perfectly acceptable (and encouraged, in our faith) to share and discuss our religion with others, and invite people to come to church or read the scriptures, regardless of who you are or whether you are, are not, or ever have been, a missionary.

It is not required for a member to become a missionary, but, at least for the young men, it is strongly encouraged, and there is a fair amount of pressure to go. (As I am a 23 year old male who didn't serve a mission, I definitely know about that!)


In Australia we seem to get a lot of young Americans coming to the door to "spread the word",I suppose it's a good test of faith because they get a lot of knock-backs along the way.


Not surprising that many of the Mormon missionaries you see are Americans. First of all, nearly half of all Mormons worldwide are from the US. Secondly, in more recent years, the church has been sending less of its members on foreign language missions, mostly because there are starting to be enough native speakers of non-English languages that are serving missions for the church.


Also,I heard that Mormons can baptise you after you're dead,if your family requests it.Is this true?If so,what would be the point?


Yes, Mormons have a doctrine known as baptism for the dead. It is a ritual that is performed in our temples. A living person of the same sex as the deceased (often, but not required to be, a descendant of the deceased) substitutes themselves as a proxy for the deceased. Then they are baptised by immersion in a very similar manner to a regular Mormon baptism, only the prayer words are slightly different.

The point of this is that Mormons believe baptism is an essential requirement for salvation. Since there are many people who lived and died as good people who were not Mormons, we do this in the belief that it will help them in the afterlife. The deceased can then choose whether or not to accept the baptism. (This, incidentally, is one of the biggest reasons Mormons are into genealogy so much)


...if your family requests it...


Most of the time, after all of the genealogical research has been done on a person (name, place&date of birth, marriage, death, any Mormon ordinances already done, whether while living or afterwards) then they are entered into a massive database of names on the list to be baptised. As I said before, most baptisms for the dead are done for one's own ancestors, but it can be done for anybody, providing the gender matches with yours.

From a Mormon point of view, we see baptism for the dead as a great service for the deceased. At worst, a person rejects the baptism and the proxy merely wasted an hour or two. At best, the deceased will be extremely grateful for what you did for them.

I should mention one issue with baptisms for the dead. A few years ago, some Jewish leaders got upset when they found out Mormons were baptising for deceased Jews. They asked the church not to do this any more unless a direct descendant or family member gives the go-ahead. The church agreed to abide by the Jew's wishes in this matter.

The Jews are, however, alleging that unauthorized proxy baptisms for Jews are still occurring. I can't speak for every Mormon, but I strongly suspect that the reason this still happens is simply that the average Mormon is totally unaware that this issue even exists. (I had no idea myself until I saw a thread by Jehosephat on this issue at ATS) Also, it is not always possible to tell if a particular name belongs to a Jewish person or not, and if you are being baptised for a person whose info was submitted by someone else, it can happen that neither the proxy nor the temple workers actually know anything about the person other than what is in the database, and I can easily see how Jews could be inadvertently baptised.

(see www.bbc.co.uk... for a brief summary of baptism for the dead, and the Jewish reaction to it)



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Yesterday afternoon I was speaking with an institute instructor, and I learned something about Mormonism that even I, as a lifelong member, did not know. We were discussing doctrine and covenants, section 19 and I got into a bit of a debate with the instructor. (particularly over verses 4-12)

When I read section 19, my personal interpretation was that Hell was a place of suffering that would last for eternity for the wicked, with no chance to escape, once God had rendered judgment. This was also what I had believed previously.

My institute instructor thought that people would not have to spend eternity in Hell, but only until they had paid the price for their sins, however long that took. So I went home and that evening pulled out my student manual on D&C to see who was right. Here is what I found:


From Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual - Religion 324 and 325, page 37

These verses provide one of the most important insights into the Judgment found anywhere in scripture. Elder James E. Talmage stated: "During this hundred years [of Church history] many other great truths not known before, have been declared to the people, and one of the greatest is that to hell there is an exit as well as an entrance. Hell is no place to which a vindictive judge sends prisoners to suffer and to be punished principally for his glory; but it is a place prepared for the teaching, the disciplining of those who failed to learn here upon the earth what they should have learned. True, we read of everlasting punishment, unending suffering, eternal damnation. That is a direful expression; but in his mercy the Lord has made plain what those words mean. 'Eternal punishment,' he says, is God's punishment, for he is eternal; and that condition or state or possibility will ever exist for the sinner who deserves and really needs such condemnation; but this does not mean that the individual sufferer or sinner is to be eternally and everlastingly made to endure and suffer. No man will be kept in hell longer than is necessary to bring him to a fitness for something better. When he reaches that stage the prison doors will open and there will be rejoicing among the hosts who welcome him into a better state. The Lord has not abated in the least what he has said in earlier dispensations concerning the operation of his law and his gospel, but he has made clear unto us his goodness and mercy through it all, for it is his glory and his work to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1930, p.97.)


James E. Talmage, who is quoted above, was a Mormon Apostle and scholar when he said this.

So today I went back to the institute and told the instructor that he was right and I had been mistaken, lol. (my poor ego got a bit crushed from that!)

I just thought it might be interesting for people to see what kind of questions I am asking, since I don't know everything about Mormonism, either.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I am mormon - and I think that the "hell" refered to by your instructor and your manual is spirit prison (pull out a map of the plan of salvation) - and I believe that eternal darkness is the really scary place w/ no exit...though I could be wrong on this.



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackknight5k
I am mormon - and I think that the "hell" refered to by your instructor and your manual is spirit prison (pull out a map of the plan of salvation) - and I believe that eternal darkness is the really scary place w/ no exit...though I could be wrong on this.


Ok that would make sense; I didn't think of it that way, before. Thanks!



posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Hello DragonsDemesne,

I have a question about Isaiah 14:12 (or the Mormon equivalent) from the Book of Mormon.

Mormons believe that the ancient record, the Book of Mormon, was written beginning about 600 B.C., and that the author of such record copied Isaiah's original writing.

With this in mind let's consider the following:

Lucifer makes his appearance in the fourteenth chapter of the Old Testament book of Isaiah (KJV), at the twelfth verse, and nowhere else: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

The first problem with this translation is that Lucifer is a latin name. How did the name Lucifer find its way into a Hebrew manuscript written before the Roman language?

The following is a person's search for the asnwer to this question:


To find the answer, I consulted a scholar at the library of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. What Hebrew name, I asked, was Satan given in this chapter of Isaiah, which describes the angel who fell to become the ruler of hell?

The answer was a surprise. In the original Hebrew text, the fourteenth chapter of Isaiah is not about a fallen angel, but about a fallen Babylonian king, who during his lifetime had persecuted the children of Israel. It contains no mention of Satan, either by name or reference. The Hebrew scholar could only speculate that some early Christian scribes, writing in the Latin tongue used by the Church, had decided for themselves that they wanted the story to be about a fallen angel, a creature not even mentioned in the original Hebrew text, and to whom they gave the name "Lucifer."


This information can be verified by any Hebrew scholar or person with sufficient Hebrew knowledge.

Why did the Christian scribes choose to use the name Lucifer? In Roman astronomy, Lucifer was the name given to the morning star (the star we now know by another Roman name, Venus). The morning star appears in the heavens just before dawn, heralding the rising sun. The name derives from the Latin term lucem ferre, bringer, or bearer, of light." In the Hebrew text the expression used to describe the Babylonian king before his death is Helal, son of Shahar, which can best be translated as "Day star, son of the Dawn." The name evokes the golden glitter of a proud king's dress and court (much as his personal splendor earned for King Louis XIV of France the appellation, "The Sun King").

The scholars authorized by ... King James I to translate the Bible into current English did not use the original Hebrew texts, but used versions translated ... largely by St. Jerome in the fourth century. Jerome had mistranslated the Hebraic metaphor, "Day star, son of the Dawn," as "Lucifer," and over the centuries a metamorphosis took place. Lucifer the morning star became a disobedient angel, cast out of heaven to rule eternally in hell. Theologians, writers, and poets interwove the myth with the doctrine of the Fall, and in Christian tradition Lucifer is now the same as Satan, the Devil, and --- ironically --- the Prince of Darkness.

So "Lucifer" is nothing more than an ancient Latin name for the morning star, the bringer of light. That can be confusing for Christians who identify Christ himself as the morning star, a term used as a central theme in many Christian sermons. Jesus refers to himself as the morning star in Revelation 22:16: "I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star."

Henry Neufeld (a Christian who comments on Biblical sticky issues) went on to say:


"this passage is often related to Satan, and a similar thought is expressed in Luke 10:18 by Jesus, that was not its first meaning. It's primary meaning is given in Isaiah 14:4 which says that when Israel is restored they will "take up this taunt against the king of Babylon . . ." Verse 12 is a part of this taunt song. This passage refers first to the fall of that earthly king...

How does the confusion in translating this verse arise? The Hebrew of this passage reads: "heleyl, ben shachar" which can be literally translated "shining one, son of dawn." This phrase means, again literally, the planet Venus when it appears as a morning star. In the Septuagint, a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, it is translated as "heosphoros" which also means Venus as a morning star.

How did the translation "lucifer" arise? This word comes from Jerome's Latin Vulgate. Was Jerome in error? Not at all. In Latin at the time, "lucifer" actually meant Venus as a morning star. Isaiah is using this metaphor for a bright light, though not the greatest light to illustrate the apparent power of the Babylonian king which then faded."

Therefore, Lucifer wasn't equated with Satan until after Jerome. Jerome wasn't in error. Later Christians (and Mormons) were in equating "Lucifer" with "Satan".


My question the is this:

If the Book of Mormon was copied from the original Isaiah manuscripts then why is the word Lucifer included in Isaiah 14:12?

The only answer I can think of is that Joseph Smith was copying the KJV of the Bible. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and you can clear this up for me. Thanks in advance.

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Well, AkashicWanderer, you have asked quite a difficult question here (at least for me!) so I had to go look up a bunch of stuff about it to answer you. That, and the fact that I wrote a final exam this morning, is why it took me some time before answering.

Ok firstly, I checked when the book of Isaiah was written. It was written sometime in the 700s B.C. The Book of Mormon starts in about 600 B.C. So it is reasonable to say that BoM people could have had the original works of Isaiah with them.

Now, I notice that you mention that Jerome was the one to introduce the word 'Lucifer'. According to this LDS-authored article (which, incidentally, is a direct reply to the article you are quoting from) it says that:


Jerome translates it as Lucifer in his Latin text--this, your article claims is the starting point for the connection between Lucifer and Satan.

Actually, 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.


According to this, the term 'Lucifer' is in fact an established word for Satan in the early Christian church. This article goes further to say:


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.


However, not wishing to examine solely one source, I decided to see what other people had to say about Isaiah 14:12. Interestingly, there are arguments on both sides of the issue; some people are saying that 'Lucifer' represents a Babylonian king, and others are saying that Lucifer is the devil. Some also argue that the word has a dual meaning, and represents both at the same time.

Babylonian King:
www.cresourcei.org...
www.apostolic.net...
www.outreachjudaism.org...
www.biblepages.web.surftown.se...

Devil:
members.tnns.net...
bibletools.org...
www.1john57.com...
www.swrc.com...

Both:
members.aol.com...
www.kjvonly.org...
(the last link mentions that due to the OT dropping off hebrew vowels, that rare words or proper names could have had different meanings when originally written than modern scholars think they do, which I thought was interesting)

As far as I am aware, none of the ten links I just cited are LDS related.

Anyway, after going through those pages, it seems that there is no clear consensus in the scholarly and religious world as to what the meaning of 'Lucifer' in Isaiah is; earthly king, or Satan? Those links each argue quite emphatically for their own point of view, and present convincing evidence on each side. Having not read about this issue before, I had no opinion on this verse until today. The impression I am getting from reading those links is that the verse is referring to both the babylonian king and the devil at the same time. (As I imagine you have discovered in your readings, you've seen in the Bible before how one verse can be referring to multiple things)

At this point, I don't think we can say for certain the meaning of that verse beyond all doubt. I think it is safe to say that at least a case can be made for the verse referring to Satan. Then, assuming that this is the correct meaning, there is no conflict with it appearing in the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 24:12, to be exact, and the word 'Lucifer' occurs in that verse and nowhere else in the Book of Mormon, as well, I learned today)

So if the word 'Lucifer' in Isaiah does indeed refer to Satan, then it's appearance in the Book of Mormon is natural. The fact that it is a Latin word is not a problem. It is a translation of a word that meant the same thing. It's like how there is no problem that Jeremiah 10:22 uses the french word 'bruit' (noise/rumor/din) even though French as a language did not exist until later; it was simply a good word to represent the original hebrew. Likewise, in the Book of Mormon, in Jacob 7:18, Jacob closes his book with the french word 'adieu' meaning 'goodbye'. Jacob must have used some fancy farewell that didn't translate as well any other way. (both 'bruit' and 'adieu' have been adopted into english, and have been for centuries; they are even legal english Scrabble words, and appear in most english dictionaries)

I have here another quote from my LDS Old Testament institute manual, explaining the official LDS position on this verse:


Isaiah 14:12-15. Who was "Lucifer, Son of the Morning"?

Isaiah again used dualism. Chapters 13 and 14 describe the downfall of Babylon, both of Babylon as an empire and of Babylon as the symbol of the world. (see D&C 133:14) Thus, most scholars think "Lucifer, son of the morning" is the king of Babylon, probably Nebuchadnezzar. In the symbolic use of Babylon, (Babylon as spiritual wickedness and the kingdom of Satan), Lucifer is Satan. This interpretation is confirmed in latter-day revelation (see D&C 76:26-8). Satan and Babylon's prince (both represented by Lucifer in this passage) aspire to take kingly glory to themselves, but in fact will be thrust into hell where there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.


So the Mormon view is that the word 'Lucifer' represents both the king of Babylon and Satan, which is what I had already decided for myself after reading on the internet but before consulting that manual.

Now, assuming that 'Lucifer' means 'Satan', then there is absolutely no problem with it appearing in the Book of Mormon, as well.

Assuming that 'Lucifer' means 'king of Babylon', then there would be a problem, since we believe otherwise.

So, the answer to your question depends on which interpretation of Lucifer is valid. Since I don't know Hebrew or Latin, I have to rely on other sources for my information, hence the large number of quotations and references. I hope that I presented reasonably balanced viewpoints within the links I cited, and hopefully I also answered your question to your satisfaction.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Why do I love my religion so much????


(I'm mormon)



CTR ALL THE WAY!!!!!!!! YAY



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Hi there,
I hope that you don't consider this to be "bashing" because I really want to know the truth, as I have a friend who is a Mormon.

Last summer, a couple of Mormons came to my door and after a few minutes of conversation with them, they gave me a copy of their "Book of Mormon."

I started reading it, and noticed that it said in Joseph Smith's Testimony,




"While I was thus in the act of calling upon God, I discovered a light appearing in my room, which continued to increase until the room was lighter than at noonday, when immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air, for his feet did not touch the floor."





Then it goes on to describe what the "angel of light" was wearing and his hands and feet, etc.

Then a few paragraphs later, Smith says:




"He called me by name and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me and that his name was Moroni;..."


Now, check out this passage from the Bible.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.

14And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

15Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;..."


How do Mormons get around this?

Another thing,
Since the 2 guys that came to my door had a "Bible" that had both the Old and New Testaments as well as the "Book of Mormon" all bound up into a single volume.

Revelation 22:18 says "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

The Mormons have added their book onto the Holy Bible, considering it equal. In the introduction, it says,




"Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: 'I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by it's precepts, than by any other book."


2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


If the Bible is all we need in life, then why have the Mormons added their book to it?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join