Morning Stars


Morning Stars

A Mormon reader asked me to elaborate on the Bailey teachings linked to Lucifer.

Since he is from a Mormon background he 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.”

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.” 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. Outside of Isaiah 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 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 her 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:

“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?” Job 38:4-7

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 may be some 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) to be seen 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 is 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.” 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 now it is a glorious thing to bring light to others. This principle is behind the entire concept of salvation as we covered earlier.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE


1 thought on “Morning Stars

  1. I continue to read AND enjoy the posts that JJ has made, and despite the fact that I have read these posts — or “principles” — presented in one form or another MULTIPLE times over many years, I must admit that reading them again — that I find that I either “missed” some important aspect — OR — that I had NOT fully understood OR/NOR “understood” them differently — and upon a/the “re-read” found “something new.”

    And while I find this/these experience(s) to be personally “helpful” — I have also had a multitude of other “experiences” that I found to to be — well — kind of “frustrating” — namely in that while I have upon numerous occasions taken “extractions” of previously published articles on such topics as “sin, faith, blasphemy, authority, etc.,” and used them as “hard copy handouts” which I gave to (what I would refer to as “orthodox religionists.”

    My experience(s) — almost without exception — caused me to think about a/the “documentary” that I watched many years ago about “the Liberty Bell” — where the/a “tour guide” was interviewed regarding the “real/true” story about “the Liberty Bell” — and when asked by the “narrator” of the documentary, if the “tour guide” told the “real/story” — the tour guide replied by saying that he/they did — but that the “tourists” did NOT want to “hear” the “real story” — but instead only wanted to hear the “mythical” or “UN-true” story.

    Personally, I have found this to be the case with almost ALL of the topics that have been presented in the series of articles & topics that have been published & posted by JJ of late.

    One of the most curious & “funny” examples happened a couple of years ago when I handed out an “extraction” of JJ’s writings on “sin & faith” — as when I met with a brought up the subject of “sin & faith” to visiting “missionaries” — their eyes “lit up” and they explained that they gad recently read about this “new view” of the topics — meaning, that I guess that the “handouts” that I had given to earlier missionaries, had been “passed around” (giggle).

    I, of course, did NOT reveal who & how those/these “ideas” had come from.

    The other source of “frustration” (more @ “disappointment”) came (& comes) from my realization & experience(s) with the concept of what JJ describes as (being) “seekers” — or “a seeker” of or after “truth” — or those that are willing & able “to consider the possibility of” whatever it is that is being “presented” to them.

    What I have found — again, thru “personal experience(s)” is that I have yet to truly encounter a SINGLE “soul” who I engage in a “conversation/discussion” that IS “a seeker of truth” — but instead — is only interested in promoting (more @ “regurgitating”) a specific “narrative.”

    This “realization” has, in-turn, caused me to now just simply to “listen” — and “nod affirmatively” in response to what ever that “narrative” that they present.

    Bottom line is that I have found that there is NO real “give & take” — or no real “sharing.”

    In fact I have lost count of the number of times that those who I engage have “knocked the dust off their shoes” after an encounter with me — and that doesn’t bother me, as what THEY don’t realize is that “it goes both ways.” (grin)

    In a post, JJ made a comment in regards/reference to the topic of (the) “molecular principle(s)” are/we’re essentially “hiding in ‘plain sight’” for over 1,000 years — and personally have reason & cause to believe that a/the VAST majority of the topics (presented as “spiritual principles” as presented here “correct” — or “additional light” — or provide a (mindful alternative) on “dozens” of other topics that have been pedantically followed if not hundred — bit possibly thousands of years.

    Nonetheless, I continue to “do what I can” — at least “within the walls of my own home.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *