Replies

The name Lucifer has often been [incorrectly] understood to be another name for the devil or the satan. ...

I have seen the term Lucifer mentioned in Isaiah 14:12 interpreted both as an obscure king of Babylon (from several sources in addition to the article you posted), and as the Devil.

The well respected Wycliffe Commentary takes what I believe to be the most widely accepted interpretation when it states:

Lucifer. The Roman name for the morning star (Heb. helel, "the bright one"), which speedily disappears before the far greater splendor of the sun. This title is addressed to the king of Babylon, not so much as a specific human individual (like Belshazzar, for example), but as a representative or embodiment of Satan, who is regarded as the power behind the king's throne. The titanic pride and ambition expressed in verses 13,14 are out of place on any lips but Satan's.

John MacArthur takes a similar position in his commentary:

Jesus' use of Satan's fall (Luke 10:18; cf. Rev. 12:8-10) has led many to see more than a reference to the king of Babylon. Just as the Lord addressed Satan in His words to the serpent (Gen. 3:14,15), this inspired dirge speaks to the king of Babylon and to the devil who energized him. See Ezek. 28:12-17 for similar language to the king of Tyre and Satan behind him.

This also appears to be the interpretation used in 1842 when Joseph Smith added the pay lay ale chant to the Masonic rites as part of the Mormon Temple Ceremony. In fact, my brief search could reveal no reference to the "king of Babylon" theory older than the 20th century. (Perhaps you can find an earlier instance).

In any case, the following are not in dispute:

The Mormon Temple Ceremony is supposedly a reenactment of the Fall of Man at the Garden of Eden; and
Mormon critic Ed Decker was absolutely correct when he claimed the English translation of the Hebrew term pay lay ale was O Lucifer.

This leaves us with the following two alternatives:

Smith's ceremony praised an obscure and/or generic king of a city state which did not yet exist; or
Smith's ceremony praised the Devil who was present at and a key participant in the Fall.

I maintain the latter is far more likely.

In my mind, a more interesting question concerns Smith's motivation for including the pay lay ale chant. Again, we are left with two alternatives:

Any correlation between the chant and Isaiah 14:12 is purely a remarkable coincidence.
As you may recall from my earlier post, citing LDS sources, Smith supposedly instructed his followers to chant in a charismatic language which he called Adamic (so-named because it was purportedly used in the Garden of Eden). And recall from the same LDS sources, the term pale lay ale supposedly means, Oh God, hear the words of my mouth.
Smith's actions were intentional.

Personally, I find the Mormon Church's assertions that Smith was completely innocent to less than credible. And, I maintain the Mormon Church's alterations to their supposedly divinely inspired and unchangeable Temple Ceremony to remove the pay lay ale chant strongly implies they concur.

I think you give Smith too much credit. He was just a con man.

If he had the knowledge of Hebrew to do this intentionally, he would have never fallen for the belief that God could be discreet and seperate, which is fundamentally in conflict with the Shema -— and a fallacy created by the word choices of the King James translators.

This is just an odd coincidence. (And bad theology, since the “Lucifer” of the Old Testament, while a bad prideful guy, is not the “Satan” of the New/Job.)

The well respected Wycliffe Commentary takes what I believe to be the most widely accepted interpretation when it states:

Bah!!

By WHOM???

--MormonDude(I respect my elders!)