By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
For years we have pointed out that Dr. Hugh Nibley, the noted Mormon apologist, has been so zealous to prove Mormonism that he has used weak parallels and wishful-thinking in an attempt to establish his case. When Mark Hofmann forged a copy of the Anthon transcript (the sheet that is supposed to contain the characters Joseph Smith copied directly from the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been translated), Hugh Nibley latched onto it with a great deal of enthusiasm and immediately proclaimed: “Of course it’s translatable” (The Provo Herald, May 1, 1980). According to the same paper, “Nibley also said he counted at least two dozen out of 47 characters in the Demotic alphabet that could be given phonetic value.
“This offers as good a test as we’ll ever get. Nobody could have faked those characters. It would take 10 minutes to see that this is fake.”
Barry Fell, whose work is often used by Mormon scholars to support their theories concerning ancient America, went even further than Dr. Nibley. He claimed that the forged Hofmann transcript actually contained Arabic characters and proceeded to translate them. His translation almost exactly matched the first part of the Book of Mormon!
While those of us who are critics of the Mormon Church may be amused by these examples, we must be very careful not to become so over zealous that we fall into the same trap. Unfortunately, we have noted a tendency in this direction during the last few years. This is especially true with regard to writings and lectures concerning the Mormon temple ceremony. One couple claimed that the Mormons are really calling upon Lucifer when they repeat the words “Pay lay ale” three times in the temple ceremony. Ed Decker and others picked up on this idea and it was printed in a number of publications which have been circulated throughout the world. It was claimed that the words pay lay ale were taken from the Hebrew language and could be translated: “WONDERFUL LUCIFER.” This is certainly an extremely serious charge. If it could be proven true, it would go a long way toward demonstrating that Mormonism is inspired by Satan.
Because we published an exposé of the temple ceremony in our book Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? and were constantly being asked about this accusation, we published a statement about the matter on June 29, 1982. It was entitled, PAY LAY ALE An Examination Of The Charge That The Mormons Call Upon Lucifer In Their Temple, by Jerald Tanner. The following appeared on the first page of that statement:
. . . I feel that I owe the public a statement which sets forth my views. Although I do not profess to be a Hebrew scholar, I feel that my research throws some important light on the subject.
Since I have been active in bringing forth evidence against the authenticity of Joseph Smith’s work, I would have been very happy to have found that this new indictment was based on sound research. Unfortunately, however, a careful examination of the evidence has forced me to conclude that the charge is without foundation.
Wesley P. Walters, one of the top authorities on Mormon history who has had some training in the Hebrew language, also felt that the translation “Wonderful Lucifer” was incorrect. He tried to warn against the spread of this idea, but his protest availed nothing. In our statement we pointed out that if the words pay lay ale are really derived from Hebrew, a better rendering would be “WONDERFUL GOD.” While the identification of “wonderful” with “pay lay” is not certain (Wesley P. Walters, in fact feels that it is questionable), ale does correspond perfectly to a Hebrew word for God.
This charachter is translated as ‘el and is pronounced ale (see Strong’s Concordance, Hebrew word #410). While the Hebrew word Elohim is usually used for God (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 168), El is also found in many places in the Old Testament.
After we published the statement on pay lay ale, some of the tracts containing the translation “Wonderful Lucifer” were changed. Unfortunately, however, some of those who had previously supported the translation “Wonderful Lucifer” put forth the idea that “the Hebrew translation of these words can be either marvelous false god or marvelous true god.” This of course is incorrect. The word El can only be translated as “God.” The word itself does not give any indication of whether the god spoken of is true or false. It is the same with our English word “God.” It cannot be translated into another language as “false god” or “true God.” It is true, of course, that the context of a statement can help us determine whether it is speaking of a false god. For instance, the words “my god is Satan” would be understood as referring to a false god.
In defense of the translation “Wonderful False God,” it has been claimed that the word El is “a generic term for God” and that it “is the word which is most often used to denote the false gods of the Bible.” Because we did not believe this statement was accurate, we decided to make a test. We looked up all of the passages we could find in the book of Isaiah which used the word El. We found 22 places where the word appeared. When we read the context of these verses, we found that 15 of the 22 were written concerning the God of Israel.
The word El appears as a part of many names found in the Bible. For instance, it is found in the name Israel and is also part of the name Immanuel. In Isaiah 7:14 we read: “. . . Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and call his name Immanuel.” This name is translated as “with us (is) God [El].” Matthew renders this word correctly in the New Testament: “. . . they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us” (Matthew 1:23).
We feel it is inconsistent to accept the translation of El as God in this passage and yet maintain that it should be translated “False God” in the temple ritual. It should be noted also that the temple ritual itself indicates that the translation of the words pay lay ale is, “O God, hear the words of my mouth.”
It has also been suggested that because Lucifer appears just after Adam prays that he is in fact Adam’s god. Actually, a careful examination of this part of the ritual shows that Adam rejects Lucifer’s message. Our reproduction of the temple ceremony as well as that published by Chuck Sackett makes this very clear:
LUCIFER: (arrogantly) I am the God of this world.
ADAM: (unsure, questioning) You, the God of this world?
LUCIFER: Yes, what do you want?
ADAM: I am looking for messengers.
(What’s Going On In There? by Chuck Sackett, Thousand Oaks, California, 1982, page 33)
Both versions of the temple ritual quote Adam as saying: “I was calling upon Father” and indicate that Adam spurns Lucifer’s teachings. It should be noted also that in the version published in What’s Going On In There? page 33, Adam directly questions Lucifer’s claim to be the God of this world: “You, the God of this world?” If Adam were really calling upon Lucifer, why would he dispute Lucifer’s claim and say that he was “calling upon Father”?
Some have used Lucifer’s statement that he is “the God of this world” as evidence that the Mormons worship Lucifer. We feel that this is a very poor argument because most Christians feel that Paul was referring to Satan when he wrote:
“In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them”
(2 Corinthians 4:4).
Another item which is used to try to link the temple ceremony to the worship of Lucifer is the fact that the Mormons wear fig-leaf embroidered aprons during the ritual and that Lucifer is supposed to be the one who originally suggested this idea:
LUCIFER: See, you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness. Quick, hide.
(Mormonism —Shadow or Reality? page 467)
This portion of the ceremony is dealing with the Garden of Eden and comes before the part in which Adam rejects Lucifer and his doctrine. One of the early accounts of the ritual seems to indicate that it was God who gave Adam and Eve the aprons. Mary Ettie V. Smith claimed that “The Lord then put aprons upon Adam and Eve, and upon us all, made of white linen, illustrated by means of green silk, to represent fig-leaves” (Mormonism: Its Rise Progress, and Present Condition, 1870, page 45).
Fanny Stenhouse’s book, Tell It All, 1875, page 364, does not mention the Lord as being present but indicates that Lucifer was not:
Then the devil leaves her, Adam makes his appearance, and Eve persuades him also to eat of the fruit of the tree. After this they make a dumb show of perceiving their condition, and an apron of white linen is produced, on which are sewn pieces of green silk, in imitation of fig leaves, and in these they both attire themselves.
The accounts of the temple ceremony published in the Salt Lake Tribune, February 12, 1906, and in Temple Mormonism, 1931, do not link Lucifer with these aprons. The whole thing appears to be Adam’s idea. The idea that Lucifer instructed Adam and Eve concerning their aprons appears to have been a later addition to the ceremony. While it is not really Biblical, it would be more in accord with the Bible than having God supply the fig-leaf aprons. The fig-leaf covering is generally considered by Christians to represent man’s works which are not acceptable to God.
In any case, while it is true that in the present version of the temple ceremony Lucifer suggests the fig-leaf aprons, we do not feel that this proves that the Mormons worship him. This, of course, does not mean that we feel that the ceremony comes from God. On the contrary, the use of the aprons plainly shows that the ceremony is man-made. If the ritual were inspired by God, the participants would not wear a fig-leaf apron (the symbol of man’s own covering for sin) throughout the ritual. The apron, of course, is worn on the outside of the temple robes. The inconsistency becomes even more apparent when we learn that the temple garment is supposed to represent the “coats of skins” which God made for Adam and Eve. The idea of wearing the fig-leaf covering over the covering provided by God seems to show a great deal of confusion in the minds of those who created the ceremony.
People are often led to believe that those who pass through the temple put on the same type of apron that Lucifer wears. This is simply not true. The apron worn by patrons is green with fig leaves embroidered in it. The Devil’s apron, on the other hand, is not green. It is worn under his suit and only briefly displayed. One man says that it is blue while another claims that it is black with blue thread. Both, however, maintain that it contains two pillars and a checkerboard pattern as well as other Masonic symbols. It is supposed to resemble a Masonic apron worn even before the time of Joseph Smith. Those who have observed Lucifer’s apron seem to agree that it not only differs in color from those worn by temple patrons but also has an entirely different design from the fig-leaf pattern.
When writers and lecturers tell people that the Mormons put on “Luciferic aprons” which are “similar” to the one worn by the Devil and thus put themselves under “his power and priesthoods,” they are misrepresenting what really goes on. One lecturer claims he has discovered that green is Lucifer’s special color. The Mormons, he maintains, are putting on the Devil’s color when they tie on their aprons. He does not explain, however, why Lucifer does not wear a green apron. It would seem more logical to believe that the apron is green because it represents fig-leaves. Following this man’s line of reasoning concerning the color green, a Mormon might argue that Christians who wear green chorus robes are worshiping the Devil, or that the “wearing of the green” on Saint Patrick’s day is a “Luciferian” plot to get people under his power.
While we agree that portions of the Mormon temple ceremony were borrowed from Masonry (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 484–492) and have roots in the occult, we feel that some people are becoming so obsessed with trying to find “Luciferian” influence in the temple ritual that they have lost sight of reality. Just as Hugh Nibley and Barry Fell strained their eyes to find parallels between the Hofmann transcript and ancient languages, these people are seeing many things that simply are not there. While it is true that the temple ritual tries to link Christians and ministers of other churches to the Devil’s work, a person who carefully reads the temple ceremony will see that the whole thrust of its message is a put down of Lucifer (see Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? pages 462–473). Although we certainly do not endorse the penal oaths and the attacks on our religion found in the temple ceremony, we feel that the picture being painted by some Mormon critics is badly distorted.
Notwithstanding the fact that Mark Hofmann’s documents have fallen into disrepute and some Mormon critics have overstated the relationship between “the temple ritual and Satanism, it is certainly true that Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders were involved in magic practices. Although we have demonstrated this in our book Mormonism, Magic and Masonry, in almost thirty years of research we have never found any secret LDS doctrine in which Lucifer is worshiped as God. If we had found any such evidence we would have been the first to publish it.
At Utah Lighthouse Ministry we encourage people to avoid extremes. We try to present good factual material. It is our belief that the truth will bear its own weight. It does not need to be embellished in any way. For a detailed study of Mormonism and the occult we recommend Mormonism, Magic and Masonry. We especially recommend Appendix A of this book for those who want to keep a good balance on the subject. It is entitled, “The Question of Satanic Influence in the Book of Mormon and the Temple Ceremony.”
Originally appeared in: