The LDS mythos build around the Lucifer of Smith's false teaching is much more than a minor error. Yes, it is error also taught in the Catholic Church and Protestant traditions, but Smith went so far as to claim spirit direction in using this error! Here’s the key to why Mormon use of Lucifer is so damning to the false prophet, Joseph Smith:
Mormons claim that an ancient record (the Book of Mormon) was written beginning in about 600 BC, and the author in 600 BC supposedly copied Isaiah in Isaiah's original words. When Joseph Smith pretended to translate the supposed 'ancient record', he included the Lucifer verse in the Book of Mormon. Obviously he wasn't copying what Isaiah actually wrote. He was copying the King James Version of the Bible. Another book of LDS scripture, the Doctrine & Covenants, furthers this problem in 76:26 when it affirms the false Christian doctrine that "Lucifer" means Satan. This incorrect doctrine also spread into a third set of Mormon scriptures, the Pearl of Great Price, which describes a war in heaven based, in part, on Joseph Smith's incorrect interpretation of the word "Lucifer" which only appears in Isaiah.
From Mormon wiki, the following assertion is made: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has unique doctrine concerning Satan, which is the restored true doctrine of the original (Christian) Church. [Keep that assertion in mind as the following error riddled Mormon teaching unfolds]
"The Doctrine and Covenants clarifies this doctrine in a record of the vision of heaven of Prophet Joseph Smith:
And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son,
And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning. And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!
And while we were yet in the Spirit, the Lord commanded us that we should write the vision; for we beheld Satan, that old serpent, even the devil, who rebelled against God, and sought to take the kingdom of our God and his Christ—
Wherefore, he maketh war with the saints of God, and encompasseth them round about (Doctrine and Covenants 76:2529).
Smith is fraudulently claiming that he was ‘in the spirit’ when he was given this error naming Lucifer, as Smith portrays the named one using the error from the early King James mistaken assignment of the name Lucifer to satan!
This did catch my eye ...
“The LDS mythos build around the Lucifer of Smith's false teaching is much more than a minor error. Yes, it is error also taught in the Catholic Church and Protestant traditions.”
First off, Protestants which I am have no “traditions” that trump Scripture. I am of the Bible based Protestant variety. Secondly there is no error in the Bible and Satan is in the Bible. Satan is also called other names and this is no myth or translation error. A Rabbit will also confirm that.
A later fallen angel was called Lucifer when he was in heaven. He was beautiful, intelligent and the “chief” angel while in heaven. Like Eve, he decided he wanted to be god and have the attention and admiration other angels had for God. Lucifer made this knowm to God, refused to repent and was thrown out of heaven. One third of the angels followed him. See Isaiah 14:12-14 .
Satan has numerous names in the Bible such as Satan has the devil, Dragon, Serpent, Beelzebub, Abaddon, Apollyon, the Beast, Accuser, Advarsary, Angel of Light, Angel of the Bottomless Pit, Anti-Christ, Bilial, Deceiver, Dragon, Enemy, Evil One, Father of Lies, god of this age, Lawless One, Murder, Ruler of Demons, Ruler of this World, Son of Perdition and on on.
Where do you see an error in called Satan the devil which is in the Bible?
Who do you believe Satan is?
I;m very confused at what the "error" is. I'm just curious. I've just never heard anyone call Satan a myth before.
“A Rabbit will also confirm that.”
I MEANT a Rabbi will also confirm this. Hope this lightens up my questioning of this "error". I agree with the other things you say about Mormonism. They are typically nice, decent people. I don't understand how they can be conned like this. Like Mitt or not, he is a bright guy and it boggles my mind that he would buy into this.
As for Glen Beck being a Mormon, I can more easily understand that. He had a drinking problem and a former Catholic. Mormons do NOT drink. This could have been part of the attraction to Mormonism. Catholicism is rather empty ... Mary and other dead sinners that they pray TO, keep a barrier in place to Jesus Christ.
Yes, Catholic do pray to Christ now and then but they want to believe Mary is their intercessor to Christ. That is totally unBiblical and her elevated status is "inferred" by Catholics. It's really a shame how passages are taken out of context to support this "sinnless" Mary. The Bible is clear, ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The robotic Catholic prayers don't help foster a personal relationship with Christ either.
Still Catholics are usually decent people just as Mormons I have met are decent people. All you can do is try to get through to them. The truth is in Scripture. I just didn't want you to confuse me, as a Catholic. I know better ... .
"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."---Joseph Knight's journal.
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.
"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.
In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:
"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."
"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: 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 that 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."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)
In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)
Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"("A New Witness for Christ in America,"Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.