Mormonism Is Not Confirmed By the Bible

[Anna_Scott]

Well, it does have something to do with the Bible, at least the KJV. Don’t you think that is why the BoM is written in King James English, in America, in the 1800’s? That’s how God talks, it’s right there in the Bible.

The problem I see throughout LDS posts is that when a conflict is pointed out it is due to the verses being tainted by the Catholic Church, which, at one time, were “clear and precious”. In other words the Bible is a flawed document and the only time one really knows what is flawed and what is not is when it conflicts with Mormon doctrine. If it conflicts, it is flawed. If it doesn’t conflict it is true. The BoM will always trump the Word of God.

Steve,
You are definitely onto something, here. It seems very likely that Joseph Smith’s resource was, indeed, the KJV…

The Mormon Church claims a text, possessed by “Book of Mormon Peoples” as early as 600 BC, was copied from Isaiah’s original words. Joseph Smith claimed to “translate” it.

Link: lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/isaiah_eom.htm

It is the emphasis on Isaiah’s words in LDS scripture that necessitates a treatment of his writings under four titles:
The article Authorship deals with the issue of the single authorship of the book of Isaiah in light of the existence of an Isaiah text possessed by Book of Mormon Peoples as early as 600 B.C. The article Texts in the Book of Mormon focuses on the question of what can be learned about the history of the text of Isaiah’s book from the portions preserved in the Book of Mormon. Many of Isaiah’s words that are preserved and commented on in LDS scripture have to do with the latter days, a matter that is taken up in the article Interpretations in Modern Scripture. The resulting LDS interest in Isaiah has led to a number of studies that are treated in the article Commentaries on Isaiah.

One simple, but obvious flaw in this Mormon claim is that the LDS translation of Isaiah contains the Latin word Lucifer, which is also found in the KJV.

How did the Latin word “Lucifer” find its way into a Hebrew manuscript from 600 B.C.; and then appear in Joseph Smith’s English “translation”?

**Lucifer **is a Latin word, an obvious carryover from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which appears in the KJV in one verse: Isaiah 14:12.

The word **Lucifer **actually appears 3 times in the Latin Vulgate and even refers to Christ in 2 Peter 1:16-19.

2 Peter 1:16-19 (Latin Vulgate):
16 non enim doctas fabulas secuti notam fecimus vobis Domini nostri Iesu Christi virtutem et praesentiam sed speculatores facti illius magnitudinis

17 accipiens enim a Deo Patre honorem et gloriam voce delapsa ad eum huiuscemodi a magnifica gloria hic est Filius meus dilectus in quo mihi conplacui

18 et hanc vocem nos audivimus de caelo adlatam cum essemus cum ipso in monte sancto

19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris

2 Peter 1:16-19 (King James Version):
16For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

17For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

18And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

19We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the **day star **arise in your hearts:

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate):
et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer
**
Job 11:17** (King James Version):
And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday: thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning.

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate):
quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes

Isaiah 14:12 (King James Version):
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!

Lucifer is not a Biblical name for Satan.

Anna

 

[LongJourney]

Here is one from Nehemiah:
I am quoting from KJV

Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river. For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth. Then dwelt they there until the latter time; and now when they shall begin to come, The Highest shall stay the springs of the stream again, that they may go through: therefore sawest thou the multitude with peace. But those that be left behind of thy people are they that are found within my borders. (II Esdras 13: 40-48)

 

[Anna_Scott]

Reference for my Post #21:

(Emphasis is mine.)
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Lucifer
(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)
"The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), and “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency;

**finally to Jesus Christ himself **(II Petr. 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life. 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).

A.J. MAAS

Link: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Lucifer

Anna

 

[LongJourney]

Nobody yet has a response to my post? I’ll continue waiting.

 

[Catholic20064]

And how do you determine whether or not Mormonism is true? We must have a basis with which to compare purported truth. Some Protestants do say that Catholicism has nothing to do with the Bible but as you know, they are very wrong. We can demostrate from the Bible that they are wrong. When Mormons claim that the BoM and D&C are on equal or greater footing as far as being scripture, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to compare those claims with the one thing that we both agree is the word of God, the Bible.

You can walk round and round the Bible without proving anything. Anyone with a little objectivity who is willing to engage their brains can determine that both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent scriptures. That ends the story right there.

 

[PaulDupre]

Nobody yet has a response to my post? I’ll continue waiting.

If you’re thinking that that passage refers to the Lehites, then you should go back and read it again, paying special attention to the geography and place names (hint: they don’t reconcile to the Lehites journey to the new world). The passage refers to a well-known historical event, not a fictional group of people.

I have to run now, but more later…

 

[LongJourney]

I had a response, but I think yours will be more interesting. I would be glad to wait.

 

[SteveVH]

You can walk round and round the Bible without proving anything.

I can’t argue with you on that one. It seems like that’s exactly what I have been doing for the past few months.

Anyone with a little objectivity who is willing to engage their brains can determine that both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are fraudulent scriptures. That ends the story right there.

So basically there is no good reason to engage Mormons on this forum? I have yet to have a discussion in which I didn’t, in the end, wonder why I had expended the energy. Maybe a seed can be planted, who knows, but it becomes a very frustrating experience. Still, I think there is always a chance of breaking through and using the only common ground we have, the Bible, must be brought into the discussion.

 

[soren1]

Here is one from Nehemiah:
I am quoting from KJV

The Book of Mormon is not about the exile of the ten tribes, which is a non-Mormon theory of Native American origins, but about a group of Josephites that left Jerusalem about 120 years after the disappearance of the ten.

 

[LongJourney]

That passage was a foundation for the speculation about Jewish origins. And yes, nearly all Bibles at that time contained the Deuterocanon. And yes, the original 116 pages may have been more directly influenced by that passage.

 

[Catholic20064]

I can’t argue with you on that one. It seems like that’s exactly what I have been doing for the past few months.

So basically there is no good reason to engage Mormons on this forum? I have yet to have a discussion in which I didn’t, in the end, wonder why I had expended the energy. Maybe a seed can be planted, who knows, but it becomes a very frustrating experience. Still, I think there is always a chance of breaking through and using the only common ground we have, the Bible, must be brought into the discussion.

Mormons only believe the Bible so far as it is translated correctly. This gives them a wide latitude to disagree with anything you say because of so-called faulty translation. They bring Mormon glasses to the Bible just like we bring Catholic glasses to the Bible. You really need to wake them up to the fraud of the Book of Mormon or the evil of polygamy to get their attention in most cases.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Mormons only believe the Bible so far as it is translated correctly. This gives them a wide latitude to disagree with anything you say because of so-called faulty translation. They bring Mormon glasses to the Bible just like we bring Catholic glasses to the Bible. . . . .

Catholic20064,

Very true. I’ve heard the “Bible is true so far as it is translated correctly” often.

. . . . .The Mormon Church claims a text, possessed by “Book of Mormon Peoples” as early as 600 BC, was copied from Isaiah’s original words. Joseph Smith claimed to “translate” it.

Link: lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/bible/isaiah_eom.htm

One simple, but obvious flaw in this Mormon claim is that the LDS translation of Isaiah contains the Latin word Lucifer, which is also found in the KJV.

How did the Latin word “Lucifer” find its way into a Hebrew manuscript from 600 B.C.; and then appear in Joseph Smith’s English “translation”?

**Lucifer **is a Latin word, an obvious carryover from Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which appears in the KJV in one verse: Isaiah 14:12.

The word **Lucifer **actually appears 3 times in the Latin Vulgate and even refers to Christ in 2 Peter 1:16-19. . . . .Lucifer is not a Biblical name for Satan.

Reference for my Post #21:

(Emphasis is mine.)
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Lucifer
(Hebrew helel; Septuagint heosphoros, Vulgate lucifer)
"The name Lucifer originally denotes the planet Venus, emphasizing its brilliance. The Vulgate employs the word also for “the light of the morning” (Job 11:17), “the signs of the zodiac” (Job 38:32), and “the aurora” (Psalm 109:3). Metaphorically, the word is applied to the King of Babylon (Isaiah 14:12) as preeminent among the princes of his time; to the high priest Simon son of Onias (Ecclesiasticus 50:6), for his surpassing virtue, to the glory of heaven (Apocalypse 2:28), by reason of its excellency;

**finally to Jesus Christ himself **(II Petr. 1:19; Apocalypse 22:16; the “Exultet” of Holy Saturday) the true light of our spiritual life. 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).

A.J. MAAS

Link: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_%281913%29/Lucifer

I would really like an LDS forum member to answer my question: How did the Latin word “Lucifer” find its way into the Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah, which Mormons claim was possessed by “Book of Mormon Peoples” as early as 600 B.C; and, also, appear in
Joseph Smith’s English “translation” of the Bible?

Anna

 

[soren1]

Catholic20064,

Very true. I’ve heard the “Bible is true so far as it is translated correctly” often.

I would really like an LDS forum member to answer my question: How did the Latin word “Lucifer” find its way into the Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah, which Mormons claim was possessed by “Book of Mormon Peoples” as early as 600 B.C; and, also, appear in
Joseph Smith’s English “translation” of the Bible?

Anna

That is an easy one for the Mormons. The will say that you are reading the BOM with unwarranted, literalistic assumptions about the method of translation. A good translation bridges the modes of speech between the time of the original document and the time in which the translation is made. This means that there could be words and phrases in the BOM that are not literally in the original text, but which convey the thought of the BOM authors better to people of Joseph’s time.

That in itself, is a rational answer, but it can be countered by pointing out that LDS apologetic arguments related to alleged Hebraisms in the BOM always depend upon literalistic translation theory. Anyone who impeaches arguments against the BOM on the basis of such translation theory must also admit, on the same grounds, that claims of linguistic indications of the book’s antiquity are doubtful speculations and therefore have no evidential value.

 

[Anna_Scott]

That is an easy one for the Mormons. The will say that you are reading the BOM with unwarranted, literalistic assumptions about the method of translation. A good translation bridges the modes of speech between the time of the original document and the time in which the translation is made. This means that there could be words and phrases in the BOM that are not literally in the original text, but which convey the thought of the BOM authors better to people of Joseph’s time.

That in itself, is a rational answer, but it can be countered by pointing out that LDS apologetic arguments related to alleged Hebraisms in the BOM always depend upon literalistic translation theory. Anyone who impeaches arguments against the BOM on the basis of such translation theory must also admit, on the same grounds, that claims of linguistic indications of the book’s antiquity are doubtful speculations and therefore have no evidential value.

I do appreciate where you are coming from, here; but you’re giving them way too much help. I would prefer to engage in a discussion with our LDS friends, rather than speculate re hypothetical arguments and hypothetical counter arguments–as interesting as they may be.

Gotta run,
Anna

 

[ParkerD]

I would really like an LDS forum member to answer my question: How did the Latin word “Lucifer” find its way into the Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah, which Mormons claim was possessed by “Book of Mormon Peoples” as early as 600 B.C; and, also, appear in
Joseph Smith’s English “translation” of the Bible?

Anna

Anna,
It was a complicated process. You have Nephi getting excited about the words of Isaiah as he read them from the brass plates, and taught them to his people. You have him writing the transcription of Isaiah’s words which had been written in ancient Hebrew, in a new symbolic writing style they made up using Nephi’s learning of Egyptian forms of writing, since the new writing style took up less space than writing ancient Hebrew. You have William Tyndale who translated from the Latin and Greek into English in the 1600’s. You have Joseph Smith who was familiar with the King James Bible translation. You have the complication that the inspiration guiding the translation process was coming into his mind as well as being seen through the seer stone, and that the word “Lucifer” was already known and in use in the English usage of 1828, like many other Latin-origin words.

The word “Lucifer” is one of those compressed meaning words and has poetic power, so since Isaiah was a poet as well as a prophet it seems particularly appropriate to have used that compressed word, common to English usage, to convey the meaning expressed in Isaiah 14:12. You will note if you compare the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 24:12 that the word “how” in the second sentence in the KJV, is left out in 2 Nephi 24:12.

I especially like the phrase used in verse 10: “Art thou become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us?” talking about the reaction of kings and leaders who lived on earth, as the “king of Babylon” is “cut down to the ground” and “to the sides of the pit.” (12,13)

It is one of the power-packed passages of Isaiah, of which there are many. I love the writings of Isaiah.

 

[Zadkiel]

Here is one from Nehemiah:
I am quoting from KJV

Those are the ten tribes, which were carried away prisoners out of their own land in the time of Osea the king, whom Salmanasar the king of Assyria led away captive, and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land. But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never mankind dwelt, That they might there keep their statutes, which they never kept in their own land. And they entered into Euphrates by the narrow places of the river. For the most High then shewed signs for them, and held still the flood, till they were passed over. For through that country there was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half: and the same region is called Arsareth. Then dwelt they there until the latter time; and now when they shall begin to come, The Highest shall stay the springs of the stream again, that they may go through: therefore sawest thou the multitude with peace. But those that be left behind of thy people are they that are found within my borders. (II Esdras 13: 40-48)

Hi,

first of all this is an apogryphal book that is only to be found in the appendix of the Latin Vulgate (and as an apocryphal book in the KJV (with apocrypha) and later on in the NRSV (with Apocrypha)). (please compare Wikipedia.)

Second, the author is NOT Nehemiah but from “Esdras” (which is commonly thought to be the prophet Ezra) (compare II Esdras 1:1)

Yes, it could be that “Prophet” Joseph Smith has known about II Esdras.
And it could be that this is the reason why he started to write the BOM.

However, I don’t think this refers to something like what is written in the BOM but it is more about the “Jewish diaspora” after the Romans have destroyed their temple in Jerusalem.

That’s interesting: I just had a look in my NRSV translation of II Esdras and found that in verse 40 they write about NINE tribes (in the footnote it says: Latin: ten; Syriaic Ethiopian Arabic 1 ?] Aramaic NINE AND A HALF.

The intersting thing about II Esdras is that Chapters 1-2 were written AD and 15-16 also.
The only ancient chapters (written BC) are chapters 3-14.

So the opening sentence of the ancient book would actually be:
"In the thirtieth year after the destruction of the city, I was in Babylon—I, Salathiel, who am also called Ezra. I was troubled as I lay on my bed, and my thoughts welled up in my heart, " (II Esdras 3:1)
Once more clear that NOT Nehemiah wrote this text.

to be continued…

 

[Zadkiel]

I will continue:

See what a Community of Christ (former RLDS Church) minister wrote about II Esdras when I had asked him what he thought about it (However, I had referred to II Esdras 14:19-48.):

Michael:

"…] I found your reference to the II Book of Esdras very interesting. I have never thought about that so far.
I am really open-minded to new thoughts. …]

It could be some kind of prove that there are more Scriptures like the BOM. Nevertheless one can only accept this book. It is hard or even impossible to prove that the BOM is true.

The LDS-Church writes:

The Book of Mormon is doubtlessly one of the most precious goods of the Church. According to Joseph Smith it is the “most correct book” on earth and the “keystone” of the religion.
Every members of the Church believe that the BOM, next to the bible, is the Word of God.
The Book contains a lot of promises so that everybody who reads it sincerely and thinks about the content and asks God to approve the Truth of this book – then he will get an answer through the power of the Holy Spirit by God."

 

[LongJourney]

That passage was openly discussed in Josiah Priest’s book, commonly distributed in the area where Joseph Smith was raised, In its turn, he was quoting from Ethan Smith’s book.

1. We have an account of the ten tribes, after their captivity, which accords with the ideas just stated. We receive not the books of the apocrypha as given by Inspiration; but much credit has been given to historical facts recorded in it; as in the wars of the Maccabees, and other places. In 2 Esdras xiii. 40, and on, we read; “Those are the ten tribes which were carried away prisoners out of their own land, in this time of Osea, the king, whom Salmanezer, the king of Assyria, led away captive; and he carried them over the waters, and so came they into another land.” Here is the planting of them over the Euphrates, in Media. The writer adds; “But they took this counsel among themselves, that they would leave the multitude of the heathen, and go forth into a further country, where never man dwelt; that they might there keep their statutes which they never kept (i.e. uniformly as they ought,) in their own land. There was a great way to go, namely, of a year and a half.” The writer proceeds to speak of the name of the region being called Asareth, or Ararat. He must allude here to the region to which they directed their course to go this year and a half’s journey. This place where no man dwelt, must of course have been unknown by any name. But Ararat, or Armeni[a], lay north of the place where the ten tribes were planted when carried from Palestine. Their journey, then, was to the north, or northeast. – This writer says, “They entered into the Euphrates by the narrow passages of the river.” He must mean, they repassed this river in its upper regions, or small streams, away toward Georgia; and hence must have taken their course between the Black and Caspian seas. This set them off northeast of the Ararat, which he mentions. Though this chapter in Esdras be a kind

olivercowdery.com/texts/prst1826.htm#pg136b

 

[Zadkiel]

However, I don’t think this refers to something like what is written in the BOM but it is more about the “Jewish diaspora” after the Romans have destroyed their temple in Jerusalem.

I am sorry I was inaccurate:
Of course chapters 3-14 of the II Book of Esdras deal with the Exil in Babylon. (Just like I Esdras btw. Read I Esdras 3--4. I really love that passage! )
And apparently some tribes fled from Israel and Judah because of the Assyrians who captured Israel and destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. (2 Kings 24+25; 2 Chronicals 26)

Chapters 1-2 and 14-15 deal with the “diasporah” after the last destruction of the temple by the Romans.
I think this is also the reason why the BC and AD parts are together. - To give the AD parts more authority claiming that the prophet Ezra had written that.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .You have William Tyndale who translated from the Latin and Greek into English in the 1600’s. You have Joseph Smith who was familiar with the King James Bible translation. You have the complication that the inspiration guiding the translation process was coming into his mind as well as being seen through the seer stone, and that the word “Lucifer” was already known and in use in the English usage of 1828, like many other Latin-origin words.

The word “Lucifer” is one of those compressed meaning words and has poetic power, so since Isaiah was a poet as well as a prophet it seems particularly appropriate to have used that compressed word, common to English usage, to convey the meaning expressed in Isaiah 14:12. You will note if you compare the Book of Mormon 2 Nephi 24:12 that the word “how” in the second sentence in the KJV, is left out in 2 Nephi 24:12.

I especially like the phrase used in verse 10: “Art thou become weak as we? Art thou become like unto us?” talking about the reaction of kings and leaders who lived on earth, as the “king of Babylon” is “cut down to the ground” and “to the sides of the pit.” (12,13)

It is one of the power-packed passages of Isaiah, of which there are many. I love the writings of Isaiah.

ParkerD,

I appreciate your response. My point is directly related to what you said, Lucifer was already known and in use in the English language. It seems very likely that Joseph Smith’s translation was influenced more by the KJV Bible, and popular works, than a new translation through some type of Divine revelation.

Lucifer, even in the Latin Vulgate, was not a Biblical name for Satan. In the Vulgate, lucifer appears three times, including 2 Peter 1:16-19 as a reference to Christ. Lucifer was not a proper name in the Vulgate.

Lucifer developed, as a name for Satan, outside the Biblical text in writings such as Dante Alighieri’s Inferno and John Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Yet, in the Mormon translation of the Bible, as well as other Mormon works; Satan is referred to as Lucifer, as if that Latin word had always been associated with Satan.

Link: scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=lucifer&help=&wo=checked&search=lucifer&iw=all&tx=checked&hd=checked&af=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&bw=1
**All forms of the word LUCIFER in the Text and Headings of the Scriptures and Study Helps, sorted by relevance.
**
1.
GS Lucifer
The name means the Shining One or Lightbearer. He is also known as the Son of the Morning. Lucifer was a spirit son of Heavenly Father and led the rebellion in the premortal life. The name Lucifer appears only once in the Bible (Isa. 14: 12). Latter-day revelation gives more detail on Lucifer’s fall (D&C 76: 25-29).
Lucifer fell in the premortal existence, Isa. 14: 12 (Luke 10: 18; 2 Ne. 24: 12). After his fall he became Satan and the devil, D&C 76: 25-29 (Moses 4: 1-4). . . . .

Link: scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=lucifer&help=&wo=checked&search=lucifer&iw=triple&tx=checked&hd=checked&af=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&bw=1
All forms of the word LUCIFER in the Text and Headings of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, sorted by relevance.

1. 2 Ne. 24: 12
   Israel shall be gathered and shall enjoy millennial rest—Lucifer cast out of heaven for rebellion—Israel shall triumph over Babylon (the world)—Compare Isaiah 14. Between 559 and 545 B.C.
   12 aHow art thou fallen from heaven, O bLucifer, son of the morning! Art thou cut down to the ground, which did weaken the nations!
2. Hel. 6
   The righteous Lamanites preach to the wicked Nephites—Both peoples prosper during an era of peace and plenty—Lucifer, the author of sin, guides the Gadianton robbers in their murders and wickedness—They take over the Nephite government. Between 29 and 24 B.C.
3. D&C 76: 26
   26 And was called aPerdition, for the heavens bwept over him—he was cLucifer, a son of the morning.

Anyway, ParkerD, the evolution of the word “lucifer” is an interesting subject, not only in discussion of Mormon works; but also in the discussion of Bibles in use throughout the centuries within Christendom.

Anna