Morning Stars

1999-12-11 00:38:00

Interesting activity among the group today. Sometimes we just kind of drift along and then with a little stimulation there are more interesting posts than we can absorb let alone respond to.

I was especially touched by Xavier and John's posting comments on the Dweller. The praise was more than I deserve, but if I can be an instrument in bringing light my soul is always warmed. John's post to Saul was stronger than I would make, but it was honest and you know exactly where he stands. That's the way I like to be dealt with, even if I am raked over the coals.

At this time I will pick Sterling's question as I am sure that anyone with a Christian background will wonder why someone I quote would associate themselves with the word "Lucifer."

Sterling Writes:
"I'm wondering why you and others here at "keys of knowledge" consider Alice Bailey and Helena Blavatsky to be reliable sources for insight into the atonement of Jesus Christ.

"I've read several bibliographical sketches of Helena Patrovna Blavatsky
e.g.
http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/b/blavatsky_helena_petrovna.html
and would not consider her to be someone I would look to for the kind of light that leads me toward God. For example, she was the founder of a magazine called "Lucifer," or "bearers of the light." That's not even subtle.

"Maybe someone can explain."

JJ
Since you are from a Mormon background you might be interested in knowing that Joseph Smith has been criticized for a similar reason. He was a Master Mason and within some of the inner Masonic teachings Lucifer is presented in a positive light.

Not only that, but the Bible itself uses the name in a positive light. Here are some words from none other than Peter: "We 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." (II Peter 1:19) The words "day star" is taken from the Greek word for Lucifer which is PHOSPHOROS.

Now let us retranslate: We 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 Lucifer arise in your hearts. What is ironical here is that no where in the Bible does it tell us to have Jesus in our hearts, but it does clearly tell us to have Lucifer there. If Lucifer refers to the devil himself maybe the Christian world should burn their Bibles.

Another variation of Lucifer is Morning star. Note the actual promise of Jesus to the faithful: "And I will give him the morning star." (Rev 2:28) Evidently Jesus will give us the power of Lucifer. Even more shocking Jesus calls himself a Lucifer: "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Rev 22:16) Let us retranslate this: I am the root and the offspring of David, and Lucifer.

Morning Star is only translated as Lucifer once in most Bibles as follows: "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! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north." (Isaiah 14:12, 13)

Even here most Bible scholars believe Lucifer refers to the king of Babylon which was addressed by Isaiah. Nevertheless, Isaiah often spoke with dual meaning and this has a definite correspondence to a fallen being.

Lucifer is a Roman word applied to the Hebrew HEYLEL and the GREEK PHOSPHOROS which literally means "One who brings or carries forth light." It could also be translated as "one who is able to hold light."

Now let us see what the Mormon scriptures tell us about this name. Outside of Isaiah the name is only used once here:

D&C 76:25 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.
D&C 76:26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him?he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.
D&C 76:27 And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!

Notice here that Lucifer was "a" son of the Morning, NOT "the" Son of the Morning. Also notice that it says he "was" Lucifer not "is." He is fallen and no longer can be called a "Son of the Morning."

What is a son of the morning? It is a being who was with God at the beginning, or morning, of time as we know it. The name, Lucifer, which refers to a son of the morning, is not the name of one evil being, but is a reference to pristine and holy ancient beings who were conscious creators before this earth rolled into existence.

Here is another reference to the Lucifers:

Job38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding.
Job38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Job38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
Job38:7 When the morning stars (Lucifers) sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Now here is a thought. If the Lucifer that fell lost his status and there is more than one Lucifer (or bringer of light)?that means there may be some good ones are out there somewhere.

Lucifer also refers to Venus and for good reason. It has been called the bright and Morning star for thousands of years. When it is visible it will often be the only star (or planet) visible in the early morning light.

Brigham Young made the interesting statement that the first man (the first Adam) came from another planet and that he had already passed through human existence and had overcome all things and became exalted. After he came here he took upon himself mortality to father the race of mankind. Then he also made the statement that Adam was our God, "the only God with whom we have to do."

This harmonizes well with the writings of Bailey and Blavatsky who also teach that the first man came from another planet. They tell us that the Ancient of Days, Sanat Kumara, came here from Venus (the morning star) 23 million years ago. They also teach that he once lived as a mortal man like ourselves in another system eons ago and came here to be a father and God to the human race.

When the ancient of days came here he arrived with a number of morning stars called Kumaras. Here are Alice A. baileys writings about the one who we call the fallen Lucifer:

"In every grouping, whether in heaven or on earth-there is always evidenced a tendency by some units in the group to revolt, to rebel and to show some form of initiative different to that of the other units in the same grouping. When our solar universe came into being, we are told in the allegorical language of the ancient scriptures, there "was war in Heaven"; "the sun and his seven brothers" did not function with true unanimity; hence (and herein lies a hint) our Earth is not one of the seven sacred planets. There is, as we know, the ancient legend of the lost Pleiade, and there are many such stories.

"Again, in the council chamber of the Most High, there has not always been peace and understanding, but at times, war and disruption; this is made abundantly clear by several of the stories in the Old Testament. Symbolically speaking, some of the sons of God fell from their high estate, led, at one time, by "Lucifer, Son of the Morning". This "fall of the angels" was a tremendous event in the history of our planet, but was nevertheless only a passing and interesting phenomenon in the history of the solar system, and a trifling incident in the affairs of the seven constellations, of which our solar system is but one. Pause and consider this statement for a moment, and so readjust your sense of values. The standard of happenings varies in importance according to the angle of vision, and what (from the angle of our Earth's unfoldment in consciousness) may be a factor of prime importance and of determining value may (from the angle of the universe) be of trifling moment."

Because the name Lucifer is now so rigidly associated with evil instead of light few dare use the term openly, but originally Lucifer was a glorious title.

Even now it is a glorious thing to bring light to others. This principle is behind the entire concept of salvation as we covered earlier.

Question: How much weight should we give the writings of Blavatsky and Alice A. Bailey? To those of you who have read them - what do you think?