Answers to Bailey Critics, Part 3
Distortion Number 4.
Alice A. Bailey’s publishing company, now called Lucis Trust, was originally called Lucifer Publishing Company. This proves she is in league with the devil.
This is the only criticism of Alice A. Bailey that, on the surface, has any validity, but that which appears on the surface is not always as it seems.
Alice A. Bailey was among other things originally a born-again Christian minister and a strong believer in Christ – so why would she choose such a name?
The answer is that she was a serious student of the writings and works of H. P. Blavatsky and she had a magazine she named Lucifer. I believe this inspired Bailey to also use the name.
The next question is why did H. P. Blavatsky use this name?
The answer is this. When H. P. Blavatsky began her work she suffered vicious attacks by the Christian communities. She viewed the churches as corrupt institutions and sometimes made fun of them in their illusions.
Blavatsky then came up with the ultimate idea of tweaking her enemies’ emotions. She named her magazine Lucifer. This sealed her doom in the eyes of her opposition, for surely this was an open admission that she was in league with the devil himself.
But was it?
No, not by any means.
The answer will surprise most Bible readers and it is this:
Lucifer is NOT the name of Satan, any devils or adversaries of love and light.
Who does bear the name then?
According to the Bible it is Christ and the redeemed. Peter also used the name in a positive light.
But aren’t we told that the one who fell was called Lucifer?
Answer: Yes, we are told that, but that was his name BEFORE he fell when he was a bringer of light. Now one of his current titles is the “Prince of Darkness,” a much different title than “Prince of Light” or “Bringer of Light,” which is the meaning of the title Lucifer.
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 PHŌSPHOROS.
Now let us literally 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.”
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 literally retranslate this:
“I am the root and the offspring of David, and Lucifer.” Rev 22:16
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. The name is only used once here:
“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 (but not now) Lucifer, a son of the morning. And we beheld, and lo, he is fallen! is fallen, even a son of the morning!” D&C 76:25-27
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 from the Bible to the Lucifers:
“Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars (Lucifers) sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job38:4-7
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 would be good ones 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 – this the bringer of the new light of the morning.
Early Mormon doctrine expressed the belief 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 become the father of the race of mankind.
Brigham Young 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. Bailey’s 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.” Esoteric Psychology, Vol 1, Page 394
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 though they were technically correct and solidly in the light in the light to use the word, it was indeed not good public relations for H. P. Blavatsky or Alice A. Bailey to use this name, which is so misunderstood by humanity and Bailey was wise to drop its use.
Aug 22, 2001
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE