[MHGinTN]

From the article: "By aid of the Seer Stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say 'written;' and if correctly written, the sentence would disappear and another appear in its place; but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used" (CHC 1:29).

If that account were true then Joseph Smith would not have included the word 'Lucifer' in the passage found in the supposed book of Nephi which quotes directly the passage in Isaiah chapter 14 written in 600BC, because the LATIN name 'Lucifer' didn't show up in translations of the Tanakh until Jerome's translation in the second century. When Isaiah was recorded Latin wasn't even a language yet! Smith was a liar, a conman, and his 'witnesses' were either conned or lying to cover him and themselves in subsequent years.

[MHGinTN]

The Latin name 'Lucifer' is not found in this Hebrew passage, Isaih 14:12 ...

איך נפלת משמים הילל בן־שחר נגדעת לארץ חולש על־גוים׃

The Latin name Lucifer is not found in even the poorly translated Septuagint (Greek version of the Hebrew scriptures). Some translation we have today have been careful enough to not include that 'traditions of men' Latin name for the wording in Isaiah 14:12, like Young's literal translation [14:12 How hast thou fallen from the heavens, O shining one, son of the dawn! Thou hast been cut down to earth, O weakener of nations]. Reading the passage in context, it become apparent that Isaiah was being sarcastic toward this Babylonian king who had terrorized the Israelites and presented himself so 'exalted'.