The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

LOwens (talk · contribs) / Owens, Lance S. This user has not edited the article. This user has declared a connection.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Religion: New religious movements Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Organizations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult

I think the link between Ecclesia Gnostica and the Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO) should be discussed. I added this a while ago and it was removed, so perhaps there is confusion out there (mine and others?) and this should be addressed, though both are discussed on the more general gnostic wiki page. A reference to Stephan A. Hoeller as an author on occult matters has also been changed to Jungian psychology (perhaps the truth is closer to all three?). Jkhughes79 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between Thelema, and Ecclesia Gnostica.

http://www.gnosis.org/ecclesia/PositionSIOrders.htm seems to have replaced Stepan's paper on the relationship of the EGC to the EG. jonathon 22:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Hoeller is explicitly anti-Thelemic. I saw some annoyed thelemite complaining on Youtube the other day, for being rejected by Hoeller. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing Ecclesia Gnostica with another organization called Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica, which is related to Thelema. In spite of the similar names there is no connection between the two groups.

Nominated for deletion on 23 March 2009 | result was keep

AfD: Nominated for deletion; Paucity or non-existence of third party sources, despite international scope there are too few members —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.229.149 (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine third party sources have now been cited to verify content. Other sources can be given to show "notability" that were not needed as references for the content. Notability is not determined solely by the number of members. Such data could not be confirmed for most organizations in any case. Metagignosko (talk) 07:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a copy in front of me for the page numbers, etc, but Hoeller and the Ecclesia Gnostica are also discussed in The Many Paths of the Independent Sacramental Movement by John Plummer, 2nd ed., Apocryphile Press, 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John7137 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various articles relating to Stephan Hoeller and the Ecclesia Gnostica were published in the 1980s and 1990s in Gnosis: A Journal of Western Inner Traditions, a print magazine. Digitized versions are on the web here: [1]. It is a valid new religious movement, and its entry should be kept in Wikipedia. Chas S. Clifton (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ecclesia Gnostic has a right to have an article on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a public encyclopedia FOR THE PUBLIC. And the public has a right to know about the Ecclesia Gnostica. Anything to the contrary is a human rights violation, plain and simple. I ask you politely to stop this crusade of persecution. This is ridiculous people, what gives you the right to oppress the existence of others to try and push them out of existence? The answer is nothing. When you attempt to push others out of existence and to eliminate mention of a certain something so that the public will not know, it is actually you that should be pushed out of existence. So ya know what, blow me. 75.254.85.120 (talk) 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC) DamnRight[reply]

There are no such "rights". The most robust criterion for inclusion is Wikipedia:Notability. It has been deemed notable, so here it is and here it will be until doomsday. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creeds?

How do they relate to creeds like the ~~christian~~ "orthodox" ones? Do they explicitly declare such creeds to be mandatory and personal, or do they avoid the topic? Or do they have their own? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 12:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scripture

This article mentions the apocryphal gospel the gospel of Philip in the sacraments section, but what is the cannon of scripture in the Ecclesia Gnostica? Which gospels do they accept? Do they have letters, acts, apocalypses etc in their scripture? Do they venerate the old testament? Do they really have 'scripture' at all? If so where do they derive their teaching from? It seems that this section could be added (but by one more knowledgeable than myself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therandomfish187 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ecclesia Gnostica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090403164923/http://terje.bergersen.net:80/gsn/index.html to http://terje.bergersen.net/gsn/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]