Talk:Luciferianism

Misinformation

I suggest someone with adequate knowledge on the subject change or improve the "Differences between Luciferianism and Satanism" section of the article. Not all forms of Satanism are materialistic and carnal. For example, the current 218 (The Temple of the Black Light) seems to have an extremely negative attitude towards the physical world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.18.191.170 (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot of misinformation out there concerning Luciferianism, much of the time it gets associated with Satanism. While they are related, they are not the same. Lucifer has no place in the Christian paradigm, he is not the Abrahamic Satan and/or Devil. The word Lucifer is found in only one place in the Christian bible ‑‑ Isaiah 14:12 ‑‑ but only in the King James and related versions: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning?" The term Lucifer didn’t even exist in the Biblical ages, the Old Testament was written primarily in Hebrew, so the word Lucifer could not have been in their language.

It was St. Jerome who placed the word Lucifer into the Bible . . . Isaiah 14:12 according to the Vulgate translation: "Et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem : cui benefacitis attendentes quasi lucernæ lucenti in caliginoso donec dies elucescat, et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestries"

The Hebrew translation had the word helel in the place of Lucifer, or rather St. Jerome replaced the word helel with Lucifer. Helel means ‘shining one’.

In 382 AD, Pope Damasus I commissioned St. Jerome to write a revision of the old Latin translation of the Bible. This task was completed sometime during the 5th century AD, and eventually it was considered the official and definite Latin version of the Bible according to the Roman Catholic church. By the 13th century it was considered the versio vulgate – the common translation.

Lucifer has nothing to do with the Abrahamic faiths, He is not mentioned in the Christian bible. Lucifer is a pre-Christian deity of ancient Roman and Greek mythology. He is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", which was written in 8 B.C.E., Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 B.C.E. And the first mention is from Timaeus by Plato written 360 B.C.E. The title Lucifer was used for the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar as well as Jesus himself. This title however is directly associated with the Morning Star which appears even earlier in Phoenician/Canaan cosmology.

Etu Malku (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

TRUE .LUCIFERIANISM is: Service to _Self [[_Use &/ .Exploitation of Others/ i.e.

File:Https://i.imgur.com/JZ3LhlR.jpg

/ find @The.Luciferian.Doctrine .bookSeries

Canon

Changed the wording in the first paragraph to "popular" rather than "canonical." Biblical canon does not correlate Satan and Lucifer. The name is mentioned once in the KJV translation of the Bible, in Isaiah 14:12. The passage refers to the King of Babylon, King Nebuchadnezzar II. The passage in Revelations about a morning star refers to Jesus, not to Satan. Satan and Lucifer were not considered to be the same being until Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.67.116.11 (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

hear

I heard they use bibles to prove that lucifer is a good spiritual being... They use bibles to outsmart those who oppose thier beliefs or doctrines. I heard rumors that they have "decieved" or took away members from various of churches to join their religion. I don't know if that's really true but I hope those of you who read this might try to prove it wrong or right.

Lucifer was an angel, although he is mentioned mostly in the Apocrypha, which is also where the only actual mention of the Fall is. E.g. Lucifer can be seen in words such as "elucidate" the Latin root roughly meaning light-bearer, from the Greek φώσφορος[1]. The rest is a bunch of hollywood adolescent fantasy and paranoid urban myth, I heard the same b.s. too once, but I decided to investigate on my own, rationally. Not only read LaVey, because you might be blurring a line between Luciferian and Satanic which is admittedly already ambiguous, but read the 1992 FBI Report --Satanic Ritual Abuse By Kenneth V. Lanning, Supervisory Special Agent Behavioral Science Unit National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. And for goodness sake, the last place people from the Left-Hand path want to be is around Christians and churches - that is Hell. I'm Agnostic, for the record, but I share a certain kinship with this feeling. You can take the Christian out of the church but you can't take the church out of the Christian. And if s.o. were hypothetically "tricked" against their will into believing something, their low IQ and poor convictions are to blame, not Satan. Also, it's not hard to outsmart most Christian laymen with their own Bibles, though there are always the exceptions, the "wikipedians" of the world, whom I do respect. I read the KJV Bible cover to cover when I was 11 (it did take 2-3 months). I'm still no Biblical scholar but I know it better than someone who only reads the parts their pastor tells them to. I'll end saying this: under no circumstances believe what people tell you at face value. Under no circumstances believe me either! Go out, do some research, and come to your own conclusion whatever that might be. Find out what you believe. No one has a monopoly on Truth - γνῶθι σε αὐτόν. Khirad 09:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

the process

The Process might be mentioned on this page as Robert DeGrimston had a three god belief system including Lucifer. Khirad 11:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

So since Khirad read the Bible at 11, he must fully understand all of it and is an authority on Biblical exegesis...? --Mikepope 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

?

If satanists don't worship the devil/satan or any other "god" then why do they call themselves satanists? It would make more sense if they used another name, so people would not be thrown off by the name.--Moosh88 00:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

MODERN satanists (as opposed to TRADITIONAL satanists) say they don't worship the devil/satan or any other god. as for traditional satanists, i'm more and more under the impression that there are different versions of traditional satanism, and that they don't all believe and/or claim to believe the same thing, so i'd prefer not to make broad, generalized statements about traditional satanism and traditional satanists. Gringo300 04:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the name is for shock value, since Satanism is basically a philosophy. Hedonism with an anti-Christian name. Ric 04:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

LaVey outright explains that he chose the name for shock value and to annoy Christians.

Maybe it's just me, but certain portions of this article seem to be biased in favor of Luciferians, and it speaks very little about their relations and differences with LaVeyan Satanists. Perhaps an NPOV check or small rewriting is in order?

68.53.121.170 15:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This entry is biased towards Luciferianism because it is about Luciferianism, which like Satanism, is a branch of the Left Hand Path. LiberatedWay (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Question, regarding clarification

I have a question regarding the clarification of wording used.

In the beginning of this article there is the following paragraph.

Luciferianism is often identified as an auxiliary of Satanism, due to the canonical identification of Lucifer with Satan. Some Luciferians accept this identification, and thus could properly be called Satanists. Others reject it, arguing that Lucifer is a more positive ideal than Satan. They are inspired by the ancient myths of Egypt, Rome and Greece, Gnosticism and traditional western occultism.

To whomever wrote the above paragraph: In the last sentence, "they" refers to whom exactly?

They are inspired by the ancient myths of Egypt, Rome and Greece, Gnosticism and traditional western occultism.

Does "they" refer to..

• all Luciferians?
• the division of luciferians that view Lucifer as "a more positive ideal than Satan"?
• or the Luciferians whom accept the identification of Lucifer as Satan?

Please clarify. Thanks. sloth_monkey 09:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Satanism originally deals with a specific archetype originating from a Judeo-Christian background. Luciferians tend to favour a wider range of archetypes such as Hermes and Prometheus for their principle archetype of Lucifer, thus calling themselves Luciferian is more meaningful to their needs. LiberatedWay (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Question, regarding references

Under the header, "Religious/Traditional Luciferianism", there is the following paragraph.

It is also considered by some Luciferians that Lucifer is the name of an alien entity, or race of entities, that exists outside of our awareness and that also genetically manipulated early primates thereby creating the human being.

I am intrigued by this notion, as it parellels the ideas of some conspiracy theories I've heard. Please cite sources for this information and, if possible, elaborate to explain the beliefs further. sloth_monkey 09:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately these wild beliefs have been removed from the Luciferian section, which are views usually held by those of a Christian outlook rather than any Luciferian I have ever met. LiberatedWay (talk) 21:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Alien conspiracy

Should the text regarding the conspiracy theory involving aliens really be classified under the heading of "Religious/Traditional Luciferiansim"? Shouldn't it be moved to a different heading, recognizing it as a seperate class of Luciferianism from that of the traditional religious Luciferianism? sloth_monkey 10:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no historical support for associating Luciferianism with alien conspiracies, such theories do not belong in this section. LiberatedWay (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial-based Luciferianism

Citation is needed for this article. The only group of Luciferians that associate themselves with this sect are those that are involved with Aaron Donahue's movement. However, that information is obsolete since you kind folks at Wikipedia deemed him as not being notable. So, why does this even exist? --Oublier 17:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation added.

--Oublier 04:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad to see the associations with aliens have now been removed since there is no notability for it. LiberatedWay (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It depends on what extra terrestrial definitively means. If it means that the being is terrestrial, but not from Earth (an alien organism), then I can understand your gladness. But if extra terrestrial just means from outside of Terra Firma, then obviously the "shining one" is an ET, even if such a being of illumination exists as the remarkably bright, yet blinding and narrow torch that is human consciousness itself (the Eye of Lucifer) that obfuscates all else. So it depends more on what the term ET actually points to. If people mean alien, they ought to say alien IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.7.218 (talk) 07:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"Spiritual/Gnostic Luciferianism"?

Luciferianism seems to have very little, if any, historical connection to traditional Gnosticism, why is the word "Gnostic" in the title? The word "Gnostic" is becoming grossly over used.--Harpakhrad11 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As a Luciferian I dislike Gnosticism, but I know of many Luciferians who either are using Gnostic ideas or describe themselves as following the Gnostic tradition in their Luciferianism. LiberatedWay (talk) 21:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Arcadian Luciferianism

I challenge this section, and I recommend removal. There are no citations, this would fall under original research. I am an admin of Luciferian Research Society, which has a membership of all Luciferian outlooks, but I have never come across a member describing themselves as an Arcadian Luciferian. I have never come across an Arcadian Luciferian in any situation in the Left Hand Path. It may be one or two individuals call themselves Arcadian Luciferians, but so few to be unworthy of mention on Wikipedia. --LiberatedWay (talk) 20:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Having given this three months for feedback, I have now proceeded to delete the section "Arcadian Luciferianism" based upon it being original research with no citations. As a Luciferian I have never come across such a term as "Arcadian Luciferianism" or anyone describing themselves as one, thus to say it is one individual's description for themselves rather than a common or universal description of a type of Luciferianism. LiberatedWay (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Accuracy Problems

This article is somewhat confusing for a number of reasons:

1. The article lacks accuracy and consistency. I won't point out all the ways this is shown, but there is enough to make one wonder about the purpose. Is it for the purpose of satanistic promotion, as suggested by others? I must agree that there seems to be a lot of bias, else why would it take the form it has.

• That's just arguing "The article isn't as negative as I want it to be". Perhaps there aren't many negative comments because there aren't many negative things to say about us?

1. Where is the proof of the information given? Under the "Lucifer" section there are incomplete references taken out of context from the Bible.

• Whether they're out of context is irrelevant. The article isn't claiming that the Biblical references are used correctly, just that some Luciferians use them. You wouldn't ask a Christian for proof that their beliefs are correct, do us the same service.

1. The sentence structure is poor. Example: "The name "Lucifer" was given to the first angel - and while commonly associated with the being known as Satan in the Christian tradition - is not the same spiritual being." This says, therefore, that the first angel was not the same spiritual being. What does that mean?
2. The implied sources are misused. The previous sentence quoted says something that the Bible, the supposed source, does not say.
3. Other articles are already using this one as a reference. Articles with less inacuracies have been reworked completely or simply banned. Why is this one still here?

Thanks for considering this. - KitchM (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is a badly written article and requires major revision from a neutral POV. There are, however, a certain number of scholars who study (or in some cases debunk) the existence of these religious phenomena, which may be numerically minor, but which examined collectively have interesting things to say about how people express the religious impulse. I've linked to this article because books on contemporary Luciferianism turn up in a Google search when I've researched belief systems of antiquity and the early Christian era — which means they've used rather specific terminology or nomenclature that has a scholarly history. For me, this is an interesting fact in the history of religion, even if it involves a small number of people. But as is pointed out, what the article says about contemporary Luciferianism ought to be carefully sourced from books on the subject. Currently that isn't the case. The sections on historical Luciferianism would be interesting, if they were written properly. It does seem to be very difficult for people who are involved in a religion to write about it objectively; there are a number of articles on Christian subjects right now that are nearly as badly written and sourced. I say this as a secularist who has just gone through a period of writing on topics related to religious practice; it's been an illuminating experience. People tend to argue about meaning rather than how to present the sources accurately — that is, they seek to control a doctrinal message. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

I would agree that this definitely needs a cleanup from an objective POV. For instance, this sentence:

As testament to the intact and thriving systems of initiation in the Order of Phosphorus, the Ordo Luciferis graciously dissolved its own organization to honor and best contribute to the emminence of this Luciferian Current.

Graciously? Emminence? How about just "The Ordo Luciferis was dissolved in (year)", since all the rest is subjective flattery and what exactly "this Luciferian Current" is, is completely undefined.

81.83.135.173 (talk) 08:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The language in this article is entirely inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. "The Neo-Luciferian Church is an outer school, a preparation of the individual in his or her aspiration towards The Inner Sanctuary, that inner order which has no name among men." Give me a break. User:PurpleChez 6/13/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.154.254.115 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I feel this page has been overly, and maliciously edited due to a bias against existing organizations. I can understand why many of the sections would need to be edited, and contained sections that were obviously written by practicing Luciferians describing themselves. It seems the current edits are far from unbiased, as they go from being written mostly by a practicing Luciferian, being very specific and positive using purple prose so to speak, then to a very non friendly source,making light of statements made, and deleting every and any mention of modern groups etc. That does not fit the definition of "Neutrality" any more than letting Luciferians write the article seem to have worked out. Simonzer0 (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Link to Lucipedia was removed

I added the link to the Lucipedia project, a new collaborative wiki run by Luciferians through the Luciferian Research Society which has members from many different Luciferian groupings and backgrounds. I just want to know why my edit was reverted due to WP:ELNO, I was surprised to see that it does not fall under the category of an official link:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided,

I would submit to discussion whether in fact the Lucipedia project deserves to be allowed as a link to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferianBlog (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Re point 1: Luciferianism is not organized enough to have an "official" site. That site is one Luciferian site among many, not The One and Only True Luciferian Church(tm).

Re point 2: The Luciferian Research Society does not meet notability guidelines, it is not mentioned in third party sources.

Further: In "Links normally to be avoided" it says "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Ian.thomson (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add further comment on Lucipedia. Many Wikipedia articles have links to sources that may be of use to those researching the subject. Lucipedia is one such source that would be useful to the individual looking into Luciferianism. To the points raised above.

Re point 1: The current article on Luciferianism on Wikipedia mentions a number of organisations of which the Ordo Luciferi is one, which I am a member of. The article also mentions Michael Ford, an author of books that mixes Luciferianism and Satanism together. The article needs expanding since what is given is a mere one-sided idea of Luciferianism as a mix of Satanism and secret societies. The only forum for Luciferianism on the internet is the Luciferian Research Society, and it is this which is behind the Lucipedia project. The founder of the Luciferian Research Society is Jeremy Crow, who heads the Ordo Luciferi, and is a key member behind the Lucipedia project. Whilst true that Luciferianism is not organised there are still a number of important and key Luciferian internet sites out there that should be mentioned in the article, which to Luciferians like me currently is of poor quality to be of use to anyone seeking quality information on Luciferianism.

Re point 2: The Luciferian Research Society is the only forum for Luciferians on the internet. It is mentioned on key opinion forming sites like my own, the Society of Lucifer. The Ordo Luciferi which you do mention also direct all their members to this site, since the leader of the Ordo Luciferi is also the founder of the Luciferian Research Society, Jeremy Crow.

On the "Further" point. Lucipedia is in the early stages with five current editors. Lucipedia has funding for a year and has a core team and servers that would ensure stability. Lucipedia is a project of the Luciferian Research Society which has the backing of many key opinion formers of Luciferianism. What concerns me is that one individual may be blocking a justified addition of one link to a substantially beneficial site on Luciferian knowledge on Wikipedia.

This was added by Mabuz Luciferi (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)Mabuz LuciferiMabuz Luciferi (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

1: I don't disagree that the article could be expanded, but it needs sources to do so. Ford is actually published, instead of just self-published, which is a major reason why his work is allowed.

2: Being the only site does not meet the notabilty guidelines. The link there will show you what does or does not qualify as notable. Basically, you need non-trivial coverage in unaffiliated third party sources.

If you could get some reliable source that demonstrates that the Ordo Luciferi, Jeremy Crow, or the Luciferian Research Society is notable or published by third party publishers (not pay-to-print ones or self-published), that would help a lot.

Wikipedia is not for promoting any website or organization. Five editors is in no way "a substantial number of editors," and a year's prediction of stability is definately not "a substantial history of stability." I don't see why you brought that up. You have yet to show why, by this site's standards, the link is justified. You have yet to demonstrate that the outside world has paid any attention to the LRS, and Wikipedia does not help gather that attention. There has only been one removal of the link to the site, and I have been trying to explain what needs to be done to bring it in. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, but it still has rules. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Further reading list

It seems like the books by Michael W. Ford are overrepresented. He did not single-handedly found the school of Luciferianism, so why are many of his books listed here? Wikipedia is NOT a place to promote a writer. That's why I have removed most books, and brought this back to three. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.205.134 (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems some one got what they wanted for Christmas and ALL references were removed, nice for you, but that discounts the fact the the majority of modern Luciferians do refer to Mr. Fords books, regardless of your evaluation of their merit Simonzer0 (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Luciferianism Is An Ideology

Luciferianism is an ideology. Philosophy isn't a horrible way to describe it but it lacks the implied context ideology brings. Luciferianism is a view of life and a code which one lives by if he/she follows the school of thought. It's for the individual but also a movement with in society that encompasses a vast numbers of fields and studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.102.209 (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to split Luciferianism into two broad categories: Theistic and Philosophical. The problem with describing Luciferianism as an ideology is that it obscures the nature of Luciferianism being an individualistic evolving system of ideas rather than a fixed collective, and may confuse on the difference between Theistic and other forms of Luciferianism. --LiberatedWay (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The thing is though, is that it is a fixed collective and you are not in it. The actual power-thumping Luciferians won't listen to you. At least not unless you create a global central banking system and turn the whole world into technocratic superstate. Then, and probably before then, they will pay attention to you and not in a good way. In the meantime, you may as well just continue with your self empowerment activities and meditations to improve your well being and those around you.

General Beliefs

The general beliefs aren't exactly right.. Sounds a little biased in favor of Lucierianism and not entirely accurate. ("Modern Lucierianism")

While luciferianism does not require one to commit violence it is definitely not against acts of violence depending on the circumstance. Luciferianism is a form of self worship and The reason many do not commit violence is because it may cause damage to one's own psyche and slow their illumination.. On the flip side- being true to one's nature is considered being in harmony with life.

Lucifer is not perceived as a teacher but rather a beacon to the path of the enlightened.

Also some general beliefs are.. Using all available means to your benefit, enjoy the flesh but never let your choices conflict with your ability to strive, and "dont eat with sheep". Another huge concept with in the ideology is "do what feels right, listen to your 'gut', but make decisions wisely for a luciferian's god is thy self and destroying your mind and/or body is a sin against your dominion. " so while some luciferians choose to use drugs and or alcohol many do not and others might only use it for magikal purposes.

**typos **grammar **mybad  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.102.209 (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC) 

The above is just arguing that Luciferians don't know their own belief system as well as those who slur us. Again, perhaps there aren't enough negative comments for you simply because we're relatively harmless and don't do much wrong? You're chasing a symbolic "balance" rather than facts.

Modern Luciferianism is a literary belief system that emerges largely independently in the modern Western world

I would submit, just something to keep in mind, that the popularity of Lucifer seems to just be something that naturally bubbles up in the milieu of the the western literary tradition. It's a kind of dualism like Zoroastrianism, where there basically a good guy and a bad guy, and if you accept that mythological literary deities are their name, or are an extended metaphor, then Lucifer is the obvious good one, and Satan, or challenger, however that is interpreted, the obvious counterpart.

You must also accept that if the good guy had their way, then the world would be ultra straightforward and a little bit boring, so then you add the monotheistic god to the mix, that is a god of novelty or balance. It's pretty easy to arrive at this perspective if you grow up playing video games and reading the Western literary canon.

Furthermore there is a strong desire for karma, or justice in the afterlife, so its very easy for hell to become the most desirous aspect of religion. To the person bent on realizing justice in the world, the executioner of hell is an easy figure to admire. You can't imagine the monotheistic god being interested in that job. And Lucifer takes on the mystique of the whistle-blower, the revolutionary, the ideal for the future.

And finally there is the tradition that Lucifer is god's most beloved. So its easy to assume god instilled Lucifer with justice and goodness to do what god cannot. And god installs Satan to keep creation on its toes. Or to challenge the reality of morality. Ultimately the point is, its very easy to find your way to this perspective, and it doesn't require any kind of organized religion. And quietly many literary minded folks probably privately venerate this character of Lucifer.

Is it possible the character of Lucifer/Satan is possibly the two top angels of Zoroastrianism bent to meet the demands of monotheism? Who knows. But the modern world, free to organize their thoughts however the hell they like, doesn't seem to care.--172.243.161.115 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Just my two cents worth here . . . Lucifer has no place in the Christian paradigm, he is not the Abrahamic Satan and/or Devil. He is a Roman deity. Lucifer is mentioned in Publius Ovidius Naso's "Metamorphoses", and the Roman poet Virgil mentions him as far back as 29 BCE. He is a Roman deity and in my opinion shouldn't be involved in the Abrahamic paradigm.

In Greek mythology, Hesperus, the Evening Star is the son of the dawn goddess Eos (Roman equivalent: Aurora) and brother of Eosphorus the Morning Star (Eosphoros "dawn‑bearer"; also Phosphorus, Lucifer "light‑bearer"), further demonstrates that Lucifer is not a Satan or a fallen angel (which comes from the Book of Enoch).

Lucifer is a Collective Name for Spiritual Freedom. Non‑Theistic Luciferians, as myself, are not concerned about Abrahamic symbolism, we understand that archetypal images such as demons and angels or any forms of a god are merely symbols towards stirring the Psyche. Metaphorically speaking, Lucifer is not an Adversary as the word Satan (ha-satan) describes. Lucifer is the 'Bringer of Light' in other words Lux Lucis and is Truth and Divine Knowledge.

I am not sure where all this information has been taken from, but I am a fixture in the Luciferian and occult communities and this is how we understand non-theistic Luciferianism. Etu Malku (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Do's luciferianism allow agnosticism ?

I just like to add agnostism on the list MrSuicideSheep (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the adding of agnostism as being too generalistic and unnecessary. There are two broad categories of Luciferianism, which might be described as: Theistic Luciferianism, those that build their belief on the foundation that Lucifer as an entity; those that are Philosophical Luciferians, who have an open-ended belief that Lucifer might be an entity or symbolic of a quality or qualities that they identify as Luciferian. --LiberatedWay (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Organizations

Following the example of the Satanism entry on Wikipedia I have added an Organizations section to Luciferianism. I consider based upon notability only those organizations that have been mentioned in sources such as newspapers be included in this section, which can be cited in references. I have added the Greater Church of Lucifer to this list. LiberatedWay (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The entry for the Neo-Luciferian Church has no citations from third party sources. There are a lot of internet sites and groups claiming to be Luciferian, but in being listed on Wikipedia I feel they should have notability, mentioned in a respected third party source. LiberatedWay (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I added it here because that organizations has its own article. If you think it's not notable enough for Wikipedia then you're gonna have to take it to AfD (or maybe try a PROD first). — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Luciferianism vs. Satanism

Someone should explain the difference. ZFT (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Section blanking by User:Mcuthbert21

I see a new user has blanked large sections of this article and replaced them with less well-sourced WP:Original Synthesis. After reversion and appropriate templating by User:Donner60, the user has performed essentially the same blanking and OR, then made some explanatory comments on Donner60's talk, to which Donner60 has appropriately replied. Seeing that many sources have been lost in the blanking, and that Mcuthbert21 seems to believe their expertise and synthesis is superior to that of the well-cited text removed, I have again restored the blanked text. I invite any editor to discuss the situation here. I have never edited this page before and have no opinion one way or the other. However, the new user's behavior is a bit troubling, and I want to provide a thread where consensus can be reached. BusterD (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@BusterD: I agree that the blanking removes other sourced content and the revised text amounts to original research and synthesis. It is unsourced and seems to be written to show there is only one interpretation or explanation and to bolster that view by eliminating other information that may either support alternate views or lessen the point being made. As noted, I explained this at greater length on my talk page. Donner60 (talk) 02:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem with the introduction and negative portrayal

I do not know who changed the introduction but for some reason it seems some editors are purposefully trying to make Luciferianism look bad or evil. As a fellow Luciferian Gnostic, it really insults me to see it like that. Please explain yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christeos Luciftias (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Notability of article

If there is a "Luciferianism", where are the Luciferianists?

In googling "Luciferianism" to try to find sources for some of the claims in the article, I found only one website by self proclaimed Luciferianists -- luciferchurch.org. It's very short, a few paragraphs and has only two links -- https://twitter.com/lucifer_church , and "More About Luciferianism" -- (the second link leads to this article).

Surely if a religious movement had any significant number of followers or energy it would have more content online.

What is "Luciferianism"?

There are several mentions of cultists worshiping or referencing lucifer in the article -- Helena Blavatsky, Moses Harman, Léo Taxil, Madeline Montalban, etc. -- but no explanation of how they differ from those doing the same thing to Satan, no indication they followed anything like a consistent philosophy or movement of "Luciferianism", no indication they called themselves Luciferian.

Luciferianism vs. Satanism

What, if any, is the difference is between Lucifer and Satan and between Luciferianism and Satanism? I took the trouble to go to a big library and check out religious/occult reference books to try to find out. Short answer is there doesn't seem to be any. Lucifer and Satan have different etymologies ("bringer of dawn", morning star vs. "accuser" or "adversary"), but both refer to the devil in Christianity. Some literature, such as Paradise Lost, depicts them as different figures, but there's no religious significance that I could find.

Catholic Bible Dictionary

According to the Catholic Bible Dictionary, "Lucifer was a name commonly given to Satan, leader of the fallen angels who were expelled from Heaven" (Luke 10:18, Rev 12:9).P.555)

Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft

According to the Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft “there is nothing in Roman Mythology to indicate that the nature of Lucifer [as the god of the morning star] was evil.” (Encyclopedia of Wicca & Witchcraft by Raven Grimassi 2002 Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, MN, under the entry for Lucifer)

The New Encyclopedia of the Occult

According to The New Encyclopedia of the Occult, the word Lucifer was “mistakenly applied to the Christian Devil as a result of a misunderstood biblical verse (Issaih 14:12) that referred to a king of Babylon. It is one of many names assigned to the Prince of Darkness. (The New Encyclopedia of the Occult, John Michael Greer 2003 Llewellyn Publications, St. Paul, MN, under the entry for Lucifer)

Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion

According to the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, “As a proper noun” Lucifer “is most commonly used as a name for the devil or Satan. This usage is based on the patristic interpretation of the morning star mentioned in IS 14:12, “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Sar [in the Vulg. Lucifer] Son of Dawn!” The Fathers took this to mean the devil. The Lucifer of the Vulg survived in all English versions down to 1611, and the word has passed into wide use in English and in other languages as a synonym for Satan.” (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Religion, Sisters of St. Joseph of Philadelphia, Corpus Publications, Washington, DC, 1979, p.2172)

Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition

According to the Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition, the Christian heresy of the Middle Age known as Cathari believed that “God created everything good, including Satan who had been his eldest son Lucifer before he rebelled against his father. Satan had therefore corrupted himself by his own free will …” Lucifer (Volume 3 of the Encyclopedia of Religion Second Edition, entry under “Cathari”)

Proposal

I propose we trim down the article and add it as a section to Lucifer, Devil or Satan articles. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

--Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Louis P. Boog (talk) 18:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC) --Louis P. Boog (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

History

The figure of Lucifer himself is a born of a mistranslation of the Bible. It's largely irrelevant whether Luciferianism has a great deal of modern followers outside a minority of esotericist and occult thinkers. The article presents historical information for what constitutes a cultural element. Even if "Luciferianism" would essentially represent fragments of cultural ideas constituting various minority currents and literary works, past and modern, it would be premature to suggest that it isn't noteable. FourLights (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Boog probably wouldn't be looking in the right places popping open general encyclopedias, but it probably does have a noteable current in some esoteric/occult works. Whether the occult is noteable - well, you tell me.FourLights (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)