Talk:Theistic Satanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article falls within the scope of the Left Hand Path work group. If you are interested in Left Hand Path-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help.

[edit] Fork

I will redirect this to Traditional satanism soon. Most info here reads like a vanity page (ej: references to Diane Vera, who was the creator of the article and who gets unreliable google matches [1]. The article itself states that it's refered to as Traditional satanism--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 02:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

~Hi! I just got an account here yesterday, so that I can participate in these discussions. Where did you get the idea that I created this page? I didn't. (In the past, I've occasionally made a few minor revisions here -- usually just adding a sentence or two -- without yet joining the community, but that is all.) And what do you mean by saying that I have "unreliable Google matches"? Diane Vera 16:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

HS Diane, get used to the accusations, the editors do that alot. It's part of their tatics as you will see. Also note that someone not me adds the SoS url to the links and someone else not me takes it back out, you see some wiki editors just can't be non bias and wikki should bann them but they won't. ISNRev. Michael S. Margolin 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have redirected satanism to Traditional satanism, as this is the Original kind of satanism. Laveyan guys can use modern-satanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veltiis (talk • contribs)

The above redirect was never implemented. Copy-and-paste articles were created at Modern-satanism and Modern-Satanism which I have now changed to redirects. -- RHaworth 18:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theistic/Religious/Traditional

Right now Religious and Traditional Satanism redirect to this article, Theistic Satanism. If one of these terms is more popular than the others please enlighten me. Google shows about 35,000 results for "Theistic Satanism", vs. less than 1000 for "Religious Satanism" and "Traditional Satanism". -- goatasaur 17:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Traditional satanism is a misleading term to redirect to Theistic satanism in the fact that no traditions of satanism in any organization have been found to have existed prior to Anton LaVey's organization. And with our current difinition of religion, it is also misleading to say that theistic satanism is the exact same as religious satanism in that LaVey's system of satanism is reconized as a religion. therefore, until proper definitions of the terms "Traditional Satanism" and "Relgious Satanism" can be changed. their definitions must dictate the redirect to the disambiguation page. this is not to praise lavey or to tear down theistic satanism. The only matter of for debate is purely in the difinitions. If there are any oraganizations of satanism (with said name "Satanism") then traditional satanism may be redirected to theistic satanism. for the time being, however, I will not revert the redirectiong of traditional satanism in that the most popular, although purely unofficial, view of satanism is that their is worship of satan. Religious Satanism, however, can by definition ONLY refer to a religion with emphasis on satan, therefore it shouldn't redirect to theistic satanism (which worship an external diety) in that it doesn't include lavey's system (which worship internal deity, or self). the redirection for religious satanism will be reverted. Thank you.AlexanderLevian 18:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

~ I agree that the term "theistic" makes more sense than "traditional," given that none of today's Satanist groups have a provable continuous direct tradition dating back before the 1960's. However, I strongly disagree with the article's claim that theistic Satanism is "rare" compared to LaVeyan Satanism or to symbolic (non-theistic) Satanism in general. Reliable statistics are hard to come by. However, there are plenty of indications that theistic Satanists are not at all uncommon compared to symbolic Satanists. For example, if one simply visits a sampling of Internet forums devoted to Satanism, e.g. on Yahoo, one will quickly find that forums devoted to theistic Satanism are at least as numerous as forums devoted to symbolic Satanism. Diane Vera 05:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I really don't know why I let that slip by. That statement will be deleted due to lack of sources or maybe I'll demand 2 sources to be cited. One of the two is difenitly needed. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. AlexanderLevian 15:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing that you guys might want to throw in this artical is the Fact that Aleister E. Crowley though disdaining the term Satanism, proclaimed "Hadit" to be Satan in his work Liber Samech. It's in his foot notes in "Magick in theory and practice". Also see his revision of the "Bornless ritual" which can be found in "Magick in theory and Pratcice" as well. Just trying to help as usual.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) By the way this shows Anton and Aquino with their "Set" did not do their homework. Set is the noon day sun. I disagree with all three of them and Proclaim Bes as the real Egyptian Satan and have suport in this by the Rose Croix.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Side panel with LaVeyan and Church of Satan links?

~ Is there any reason why the Theistic Satanism page has a side panel with a whole big bunch of links pertaining to the Church of Satan? Seems to me that that side panel belongs on a page about LaVeyan Satanism, but not on a page about theistic Satanism. Although many of today's forms of theistic Satanism are influenced by LaVey to at least a small degree, most are not, by any means, based PRIMARILY on LaVey. Diane Vera 20:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The side panel itself should be improved on, in my opinion. It would make sense to include other organizations and things concerning other groups that fall under "Satanism." I mean, I don't disagree with how the articles are put together, but the side panel definitely could use some editing. Keep it "Satanism" on there, but list other groups and people. I"m not sure how to edit it so I won't mess with it. But maybe somebody should? WerewolfSatanist 20:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "Church of Satan" sidebar, it's a "Satanism" sidebar. The Church of Satan is a prominent Satanist organization. The sidebar should go on most pages regarding Satanism. -- goatasaur 22:00, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Goatasaur I think the objection was that it only had groups directly claiming to have sprung up from Anton LaVey's philosophy. Though I think the entire argument across the talk pages is getting a little adolescent. LaVey gave the term respectability and credibility and defined it. Yes there are new sects now, but they are essentially post LaVeyan. Also, Ms. Vera might you want to write about your group as well? I don't seem to see it on this page. WerewolfSatanist 02:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that since this is Theistic Satanism and nothing to do with LaVey the side bar should reflect non LaVey groups that fall under the definition of Theistic Satanism. As it is now the side bar looks like Spam for the Church of Satan.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

- Spam is exacly what this is! how can we report it to wikipedia ? Also, the 'curch of satan" page should not be the default page when looking for "satanism" as this is just a modern interpertation of satanism and not the traditional, origial theo-philosophy.

veltiis - 30-nov-2006 -

[edit] Joy of Satan

I have rewritten this with proper sources and an encyclopedic tone. If you can improve upon it do - but include reputable sources. Please do not blank, I put work into it. They are notable due to the contraversy surrounding them.

Hi again, thanks to whoever added to it. I have edited it to give it the tone of an encyclopedia, but I believe I've kept any info you addedMerkinsmum 01:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt who ever it is even reads here, but blanking is vandalism. Be considerate of my hard work:)Merkinsmum 03:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This was plastered on the top of the main article

LaVey started the so-called "Church" of Satan but he has NO OWNERSHIP OR CREATORSHIP of Satanism. Furthermore, there's no such thing as "Satanic Atheists" (unless you're an Atheist in denial), anymore than there are "Christian Satanists" or "Christian Atheists". I think that whoever (probably an arrogant and ignorant LaVeyan) wrote the comment below should shut-up and spare themselves any further embarassment. Have fun talking to yourself from now on. Bye.

No it is not discrimination being as the Church of Satan and Satanism was something put forth by LaVey and the Church of Satan they naturally have the Satanism page with their beliefs, your beliefs however are THEISTIC Satanism, thus granting a seperate page. Much in the same fashion that the many different WICCA religions have seperate pages. LaVey Satanists are Atheists, thank you, shut up.

- the·ism (thzm) Pronunciation Key n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.."

Keep to the talk page lads, don't post your gripe on the main article Ultre 18:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, Satanism by Anton LaVey uses the word 'Satan' in its original Hebrew format - adversary. It does not refer to 'Satan' the deity. If you want to argue that, I suggest going on a message-board dedicated to it, but I'm afraid it's a fact and thus not up for discussion here.

Satanism did not exist except as a Christian falacy and something for fun before the 1950s, when real Theistic Satanism came into existence. Before the Church of Satan, yes, but they were just the same as the devil-worshipping cults of today. Most cults that don't use a copy-pasted Al Jiwah or Crowley's works readily admit that. Furthermore, I believe Satan is the 'adversary' in Persian, not Hebrew. Just the same, it makes sense either way. 12.96.46.209 09:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't understand why things were changed from what they were awhile back. Not to long ago, there was an article on Satanism that outlined most forms of it{including Luciferianism, sometimes seen as not Satanism}, and which contaied relevant and important info and links to Wikipedia artciles on all the forms{including Laveyan and Modern/symbolic}. There were Wikipedia articles on Theistic Satanism, Church of Satan/Laveyan Satanism/modern Satanism{noit neccaserily one and the same; as many moderns/symbolics go beyond Lavey and the CoS Doctrines}, and on Luciferianism. As well there was a whole article explaining "dark doctrines, SAT/TAN Satanism" and now it's gone, I don't understand why? Frankly, the former articles were pretty well off, and fairly accurate. Now all of a sudden things are changed and at leats one type of Satanism{SAT/TAN, Dark Doctrines} is missing completely? What happenned? Second off, in response to the above comments about Laveyan Satanism and modern/symbolic Satanism not neccaserily beeing "atheistic" or "agnostic"m those comments are 100% correct. Whilst, the dark force named Satan in the Laveyan tradition is espouse din a way meant to discourage deity "worship" and encourage worship of the self, by and large; it is actually more Deistic or PandDeistic{just read the comments about it in Laveys own "Satanic Bible"}, so Laveyan Satanism and "modern/symbolic" Satanism is essentially non-theistic{allthough from what I've heard the CoS grotto masters hand book has Lavey speaking on Satan in fairly personal or theistic terms at least once; but that could be incorrect and hearsay, as I've never actually read the handbook}, and perhaps it is even "anti-theistic"{who knows}, but it's not nessacerily "atheistic", many are agnostics, and some are even deists{believe in first cause} in modern/sybolic and Laveyan Satanism. Lavey himself aknowledged the Deistic/PanenDeistic oriented oriented "dark doctrines" as espoused by the 'Satanic Reds' and it's founder Tani Jantsang, bestowing Jantsang with an honorary title for her explanations of the "Dark Force- hidden in nature". There's alot of misinformation about Laveyen/Modern Satanism, alot of it is done by the modern/Laveyans themselves in many cases-where the espouse it as purely atheistic or strong atheistic. If Lavey was a "Pure Athiest" and espousing a Purely Athiestic Satanism, he'd not have recognized the deistic oriented dark doctrines. But, meh, whatever I suppose.Bill Baker --Iconoclastithon 23:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Satanism, especially in France

Some place in all this Wikipedian Satanism debacle, there needs to be a home that will include French (and other) Satanism of the last century (and earlier), such as the author Huysmans described in his book "La Bas". Lest someone says that "La Bas" was just a novel, it doesn't matter if it was or not, because there were hundreds of books and articles in the late 1800s/early 1900s describing and discussing Satanism, especially (or even mostly) in France. It was a huge business. There were the books by Leo Taxil claiming that the Masons were Satanist (Taxil hoax), and there were numerous pro and anti Satanist books written. This period of Satanism is discussed in many historical/scholarly works such as:

Rhodes, H.T.F. (1954). The Satanic Mass.
Zacharias, Gerhard (1964). Der dunkle Gott: Satanaskult und Schwarze Messe.
Cavendish, Richard (1967). The Black Arts. (See especially, Chapter 7, "The Worship of the Devil", section 3, "The Black Mass")
Zacharias, Gerhard (1980). The Dark God: Satan Worship and Black Masses. (Translated from the German by Christine Trollope)
And don't forget all of Montague Summers' classic works.
And to add the list, besides the list of books in German and English, there are, of course, about 100 books in French all from the same time, talking about exactly the same topic - Satanism with a capital "S".
And the Dennis Wheatley Occult Library - these are all novels, but he wrote, for example, "To the Devil, a Daughter" (1953), and "The Satanist" (1960).

In other words, "Satanism" has been talked about, and been around, for a long time, and many articles in Wikipedia that link to Satanism, are expecting the reader to come across this true, historical version of Satanism, and not some new-Age alternate religious movement.

This branch of Satanism can in the main be described as "Theistic Satanism", as it was seen as relating to Roman Catholicism. However, it could also include French writers such as Baudelaire and Lautremont, and the Marquis de Sade, who didn't necessarily worship the Devil, although they too were rebelling specifically against Roman Catholicism.Jimhoward72 12:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I'm in full agreement with Jimhoward72Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that Richard Cavendish, in the last few chapters of his book "The Black Arts", has a good historical outline of Satanism and Devil Worship (and it was published just prior to the appearance of the Church of Satan). I think someone (I or someone else) should cover some of the things he covers in this "Theistic Satanism" article. For example, mentioning Huysmans' La Bas, the Black Mass, the "Witches Sabbath", and some of the supposed Middle Age "Devil Worshippers", Pacts with the Devil, and so on. Another mention of the same Middle Age topics is discussed in Huysmans' "La Bas", who mentions people back in his time who were claimed to be "Devil Worshippers", rogue priests, and such. Jimhoward72 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed WikiProject: Left Hand Path

In order to create an organized effort, I've put on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals page a proposed Left Hand Path project to try and sort out all the problems we go through and to help properyly cite and protect things. If you're interested just go to the Project Council/proposals page and add your name to the "Left Hand Path" section. Seeing as there's been a wide variety of edit wars, it might be good to get some organization (and possibly administration to mediate conflicts). Just an idea. WerewolfSatanist 16:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good idea and move. Organization is indeed needed in this section. (85.75.235.250 15:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Citations needed

I noticed someone added citations needed after every group which seems to be a move to get rid of the groups if citations are not made. I added a citation for the Sinagogue of Satan. I hope I did it right. Just trying to get along not trying to fight. I hope I'm complying with policies and if not I'm sure you'll tell me.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Good addition. I've fixed it up so it appears under the notes section. Tunnels of Set 02:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I add the other ones from my user page or is that one enough?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank youRev. Michael S. Margolin 03:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Since Anton LaVey and Blanche Batron and any CoS material have nothing to do with Theistic Satanism I propose they be removed from the article.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC) OK before I remove All Church of Satan related material from the Theistic article found in the references section does anyone object to this move and why?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC) One more thing, Because this material was on the Theisitc Satanism article it shows that some one has been using wikipedia to advertise for the Church of Satan. Thus your free editing (Which I support) has been exploited. Furthermore the guilty parties are hard at work trying to continue that exploitation in the Satanism article. Please see the discussion page for SatanismRev. Michael S. Margolin 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Distinguish from LaVeyan Satanism

There should be some distinction made in this article between its topic and LaVeyan Satanism, which is so often presumed to be synonymous with this. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 00:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There already is a whole other LaVeyan Satanism article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.74.231.135 (talk • contribs)

This article should indicate that it is distinct. Separate articles don't establish distinction. One could easily be misconstrued a superset of the other. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to edit the article to correct it according to your critiques?67.170.214.183 02:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Keith I said edit not advertise the Church of Satan in a topic it does not belong in. As you see I pointed out that theistic Satanism is not Atheistic this should be more than enough to show a distinction from LaVey without exploiting wikipedia to advertise them. I could not help but notice you said "other forms of Satanism" but only brought up LaVey and no others.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument has no basis here. To illustrate the distinction between "theistic satanism" and other known forms of satanism i.e. philosophical satanism, I used the most prominent form as an example. That's valid. You seem to be hell-bent (uh, heh) against any mention of LaVeyan Satanism in this article under the undefended argument that "it doesn't belong". Well, it does, inasmuch as it is distinguishable and yet confusable with what is described here.

Your edits since mine have in effect entirely removed the distinction I was specifically invited to make. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 06:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, if "theistic satanism" is, as the name suggests, a belief/worship in a deity named Satan, but Sinagogue of Satan "encourages its followers to believe in whatever they choose, as long as they do not attempt to push their beliefs on others. The aim of this religion is the ultimate destruction of religions", i.e. it likewise does not believe in a deity named Satan... how does it "belong" here any more than LaVeyan Satanism? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, ultimate destruction of religion hmmmm....now wouldn't Satan just love that >:) And if you read the SoS Manifesto completely you'd know it's allot more than just what you chose to use in your arguement. You could have quoted the top paragraph and saved yourself from having to make the following topic questioning why Freemasons. “The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black God, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a person, but a force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or free will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God Pan; thence the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the light bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.” Molars and Dogma Albert Pike 1871Rev. Michael S. Margolin 02:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The article's treatment of the Sinagogue does not indicate that that church believes in Satan as a deity, in fact it suggests the opposite -- that followers are encouraged to believe whatever they want and there is no pushing of belief. Nor does the quoted (below) passage of the Scottish Masonic book, which explicitly states that "Satan" is a personification (not an actual being). Therefore, the Sinagogue fails the definition of theistic satanism, which is belief in Satan as a deity. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 15:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

You are forgetting that a religion that contains all religions also contains Theistic Satanism. Anyone that reads your last reply can see where your trying to go with this. Not only is the Sinagogue of Satan a Satanic religion but it also includes all of its forms. Hell I even have CoS members. As far as your comment on Pike's / Eliphas Levi's paragraph you did not address Idolatry such as the Baphomet which almost all types of Satanists including Theistic Satanists use, thus there in an idol you have your deity.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, Unitarian Universalism would be theistic, but it's not. So, SoS is both theistic and non-theistic? As you quoted, Satan is the personification of atheism (according to the Scottish Masonic tome). So, if SoS believes in Satan as defined in the Scottish tome, then it believes in atheism. Yet because some followers may believe in a Satan deity, the whole religion is theistic? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I have two questions. 1. Why are you not addressing the Idol as a deity? 2. Why are you focused on Sinagogue of Satan? From where you are going with this, the other groups listed can, if you get away with getting rid of SoS, be disposed of next. Before you start another wiki war, show me how the other groups listed should be in Theistic Satanism.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 01:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masonic book as reference?

How is the Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry a source for theistic Satanism? Furthermore, that tome is over 800 pages long. Can a more specific reference be made? Also, the word "satanism" does not appear in that work. I'm very confused. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

“The true name of Satan, the Kabalists say, is that of Yahveh reversed; for Satan is not a black God, but the negation of God. The Devil is the personification of Atheism or Idolatry. For the Initiates, this is not a person, but a force, created for good, but which may serve for evil. It is the instrument of Liberty or free will. They represent this Force, which presides over the physical generation, under the mythologic and horned form of the God Pan; thence the he-goat of the Sabbat, brother of the Ancient Serpent, and the light bearer or Phosphor, of which the poets have made the false Lucifer of the legend.” 5th Paragraph on page 102 1956 edition Morals and Dogma Albert Pike. I do hope that helps to clear up your confusionRev. Michael S. Margolin 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey you want the part where Satan created Adam not god? And save the Taxil scandal move because I have Clausen's Commentaries on Morals and Dogma and will blow that attept out of the water. Also to be fair Pikes paragraph is almost a direct quote from EliPhas Levi you know the guy that inked the Baphomet. And no Pike didn't give Levi credit but LaVey didn't give Ragnar Redbeard ("Might is Right" published 1910) any credit for the Santaic bible and it makes up 70% of it and not only did LaVey take whole paragraphs but he took whole chapters as well. Let alone butchering the Enochian Keys ( John Dee, Sir Edward Kelly and later Aleister Edward Crowley) by inserting horror movie demon names insted of the orginal for popularity reasons alone. Magick is a system not a popularity contest performed by 3rd rate stage magicians.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

.................................................................. Montague Summers in 1946 from his book Witchcraft & Black Magic, pages 274-275;

Today some of the London covens of Satanists are composed of as many as thirty or more members, men and women; some circles, again, are quite small and consist of half a dozen or ten initiates. The Oxford covens are, I believe, all limited in numbers, and rarely admit more than twelve. Here, on account of conditions of the case, the personnel is continually changing, and the older members before they leave introduce newcomers.

Cotton Mather speaks of Officers among the witches. These were in the first place the local Chiefs or Masters of a Coven and their subordinates, above whom ranked the Grand Master of a district, the ‘head Actor at their hellish Randezvouzes’.

This’ Head Actor’, or President of the Sabbat, was often times called the Devil’ by the witches, whilst his satellites and assistants were termed ‘Devils’, some confusion has arisen, and human beings have not been discriminated from malign entities who materialized at these meetings.

Burns Begg (Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, New Series, Edinburgh, Vol. X) remarks that the witches on occasion ‘seem to have been undoubtedly the sonated Satan’. I rather think that the man who personated Satan at these gatherings was not so much an unscrupulous and designing knave as himself a devil-worshipper, who was devoted body and soul to the cult of demon, and who believing intensely in the force and reality of his own horrible powers, presented himself for the adoration of the witches as the vicegerent of his and there master, and, in the name of the fiend he served, exacted their humblest obedience and exercised a lordship which was as absolute as it was unquestioned. On the other hand, very often it was indeed some demon, of hell, some evil spirit in seemingly corporeal substance and in monstrous shape, who sat upon the throne, there to receive the homage of the children of darkness.

The sabbats of the Neuchatelois sorcerers were not in-, frequently presided over and directed by the Grand Master of the district, but a profound scholar, l’abbe Jeanneret, Maintains that it is impossible for the unprejudiced historian, in the face of overwhelming evidence, not to believe that upon occasion a fiend was visibly and indeed present at these assemblies. ...............................................................

I didn't ask anyone to proselytize. I asked for someone to back up and clarify the source for the content, with the hope that maybe they'd improve the citation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KeithTyler (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I did not proselytize, I answered your questionsRev. Michael S. Margolin 19:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of Satan

I altered the origin part of the article to say "some theistic satanists believe.." Unaltered, the statement does not even align with the main wikipedia article about "Satan." Without some sort of historical reference, the unaltered statement is no more than religious propaganda. - Platypirfun

[edit] Liber of the Goat

I am not the person that put that in the article, I'm the person reverting your edit. There are other posts with the same publisher and you did not edit them out, only mine, which was not put there by me. Explain your actions please.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 00:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Your book is self published and not a reliable source or appropriate for inclusion. You are trying to keep a book that you wrote and published with a vanity press as a ref on the article. See the problem? I'd refer you gain to our policies on this matter: WP:SPS and WP:COI. NeoFreak 17:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with your statement. I'm the author but I'm not the person that had it published. Therefore once again you made an action without knowing the facts. That book was published by Marvin Sotello. Do I really need to call a mediation on you?Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Haha, this is silly. You wrote a book and paid to have it published. It's sold on lulu.com a site for authors to sell books they have published themselves. You can't even get it on amazon. Either you are playing at semantics or you're just not reading the policy guildline on this issue. Please, if you read the linked policy I'm sure you will understand why this book is not a WP:reliable source. NeoFreak 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I wrote a book but did not pay to have it published, nor did I publish it. I wonder if this kind of jumping to conclusions with no regard to checking out the facts is what got Pat Tillman shot eh Marine? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Haha, cheeky. Tillman was an Army Ranger and not a Marine but your venom is noted desipte your ignorance. Maybe you could clear up the publication process for this stupid jarhead. NeoFreak 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's an easy question but before I answer I never said he was a Marine did I, but as you can see I did read up on you. As for me having nothing to do with the Publication, it is as I said I didn't publish it Marvin Sotello did. I don't get any money from any of the things my members and non members do with my poetry, writings, religion, political campiagn, art, hell you name it as they will. I'm like that guy that made Linux, others profit and do with as they will and I just create. Notice we don't even charge for membership? Also for the record you don't need to be a member to be part of SoS. That is an extrememly false statement you made. Yes we do have a members section but you don't have to be a member to get your own free email account or use the chat room or general message board and the manifesto is available to the general public. One of our current projects is a rights card for all countries and if you'd look into it there is even one for non members/non Satanists. Your actions and comments leave me to believe you have some major misconceptions about me and my religion. Perhaps these links will help. http://www.leagueofsatanists.com/revmikeinterview.html This one is an example of what my members do on their own including publishing my works if they will. http://www.horns-up.com/Sinagogue_of_Freedom.html I hope this helps and I hope I answered for the 3rd time how I had nothing to do nor have anthing to do with the publishing of the book of the goat. One last point, I did not enter me or Sinagogue of Satan in wikkipedia, I'm the one that stayed and protected it and Satanism. Before the article said LaVey created Satanism, I'm the stuborn asshole that had that corrected.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 03:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using Pike as a source

I have removed a reference to Pike's "Morals and Dogma" ... Pike really is not an expert source on Theistic Satanism (M&D is more a treatis on comparative religious symbology as it relates to Pike's masonic ritual)... the section being refered to is a discussion of what Kabalists believe, not Theistic Satanists. It has been pointed out to me that Pike was paraphrasing Levi... so why not use that instead? Blueboar 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Because I got it from Morals and Dogma before I found it in Levi's works also Clausen did not have an issue with it, nor is it part of the Taxil scandal. It is also what I based Sinagogue of Satan on, again before I found it in Levi's history of Magic.158.184.149.13 18:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you were referring to Taxil or any of that... The point is that Pike was being misused here. Pike is a very tricky source to use... for one thing, his was an amature and not an expert on comparative religions... (a very verbose amature, but an amature never the less). Secondly to get what he is talking about, you have to read more than just a few paragraphs... you really have to read several pages on either side of any quotation. In this case, the reference is part of a larger discussion on the subject of the concept of "Light" in various religions and philosophical movements. The paragraph you refer to is a passing remark about how Kabalists (not Theistic Satanists) view Satan ... and specifically how they view Satan in the context of Light vs Darkness. In short the reference is out of context and misapplied. I don't know Levi well enough to say if he is a reliable source... but assuming he is, then I would use him. Blueboar 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well argued point as far as Theistic Satanism but since Pike's paragraph is at the top of the Sinagogue of Satan manifesto would it's mention be appropriate for the Sinagogue of Satan paragraph? I agree with you finally over the Theistic as you can see. As far as Levi he is pretty much the Father of Satanism, besides the Catholic Church. He is also the person that drew the famous Baphomet picture and the Church of Satan's Baphomet. I could see adding Levi to Theistic Satanism but keeping Pike in the Sinagogue of Satan paragraph. Gladly awaiting your feed back.66.230.200.146 21:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well... let's look at the paragraph in question (as it was before my edit) and see if we can work something out... it said:

The Sinagogue of Satan is an organization of "Occult Satanism" an all one religion founded by Michael S. Margolin on January 29, 1999, a religion based on the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Free Masonry's definition of Satanism as described in Albert Pike's work Morals and Dogma. This religion is not based on those of the popular Satanists of today, but is instead based on the works of Aleister Crowley.

Now, the first thing that struck me is that there seems to be a contradiction here... is the Sinagogue of Satan based upon Pike or is it based on Crowley? There is a huge difference.

The second thing is the wording: "...based on the Ancient and Accepted Rite of Freemasonry's definition of Satanism as described in Albert Pike's work Morals and Dogma" ... there are several errors in this: 1) The name of the rite is incorrect... I think you may mean "Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry". 2) if so... The Scottish Rite has no definition of Satanism. Nor can any such definition be discribed in Morals and Dogma. Morals and Dogma is not a definitive work for the Scottish Rite... it is purely Pike's own thinking. 3) Pike is not giving a definition of Satanism in the section of Morals and Dogma that you refer to.

That said, I think what may be accurate is that that the Synagogue of Satan is "a religion based upon Margolin's interpretation of a passage in Albert Pike's work Morals and Dogma, and is influenced more by the works of Aleister Crowley than popular Satanists of today." (Although you would need a relaible source to back up both halves on this statement.) Blueboar 13:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job I have to admit you are right. I'd be very happy if you were to make that correction as you stated. As for source I Rev. Michael S. Margolin state that blueboar could not have gotten a better source.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 18:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I will make the suggested change, but with a citation request added... unfortunately a comment made on a Wikipedia talk page is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. While I do not doubt that you are who you say you are... I have no reliable verification for that (anyone could register with the user name "Rev. Michael S. Margolin")... which means we can not verify that your statements are from the Michael Margolin mentioned in the article. What we need is a similar comment made in a reliable source such as a published book or an organizational web page or something. Blueboar 19:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Blueboar I do have a couple interviews lined up and so I can see if I can get it that way for you. I'll also re read the section on SoS in "Think you're the only one" and see if it touched upon your wording, off hand I don't think so. I will see what I can do, there are many ways to achieve this. Thank you for being patient and hospitible.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 22:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure... I have no problems with discussing SofS, nor saying that you were inspired by Pike... or some other similar wording that accurately reflects the development of your religious philosophy. As long as such statements are attributable to you, and not to Pike. As for sources.... if you can come up with some interviews and such that would be great. I have no problem with including SofS in this article (it definitely seems to be relevant)... but we do need to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines and Policies while doing so. If I can help to improve the article, just let me know. Blueboar 02:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

http://www.leagueofsatanists.com/revmikeinterview.html This interview was done last year and The league asked about Freemasonry, I hope my answer works for the citation.Rev. Michael S. Margolin 19:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Setianism

the txt here states that Pharoah expelled the Hebrews from Egypt. However, I can find no source to back up this claim. In fact, the only significant writings of the time that even place the Hebrews in Egypt are the Hebrew writings, which state that not only did Pharoah not expell them, he did everything he could to not let them go...64.122.70.121 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] anyone think of some WP:RS we can use/ my edits

I don't really know how we can improve this article, as in get it WP:RS, because so little has been written by modern Theistic Satanists which has been published by well-known publishing houses. I need to read Mastering Witchcraft by Paul Huson as I think that might contain some info about it.

Certainly this was a bit wrong:-

"All these faiths hold in common, however, with each other and with Philosophical Satanists, that man, and specifically the self are the highest priorities"

The self may be important to some Theist Satanists, but the word "Theistic" means the core concept is the worship of Satan. IMHO. And to many theistic Satanists, they try and make Satan one of the highest priorities in their lives. Merkin's mum 01:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to work on this in my user sace, so it doesn't seem like I'm flooding the article with my changes. If you look at my edits though, although I've done a tiny bit at a time they're pretty minor, usually clarifying, trying to clean up WP:OR and adding refs. Sorry if my activity seems more intense than it is. Eventually I'll clean this article up a fair bit though, by adding sources. It's tiring for me to work on, because it's quite long. Merkin's mum 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sources

[2] [3] yes! good one. Shame it's self published. This is a proper book [4] a secondary source discussing T.S. a bit. [5] more lulu fare. [6] shows Christians vaguely using the term. [7] more Lulu. Still a couple of these are slightly useful. [8] more fundies or someone using it. [9] perhaps a few more. These are what we should be using- ideally not relying much on the lulu ones.:) Merkin's mum 02:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Does a refrence have to be in book or web form? I understand the problem with using LuLu, "Book of the Goat" was published in my collected works CD by Theophoney Records. Would that be a better refrence for it Merkinsmum?Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any reference online to "theophoney" as a refering to a record company or anything, is that how it's spelt? It that your own, or a friend's, name for their productions? LuLu is ok I suppose for conveying people's own ideas about their religion, and can be used as a reference for their own ideas. It sort of has a stigma though but at least it means people can access the texts concerned to verify that it says what it says. So it's upto you really which one you'd rather use.:) Merkin's mum 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It's here, http://www.theophanyrecords.com/madpoet/ and they are a Christian record company that used me as what they called their token Satanists to show they support all religions. But I see most likely "Knife" used the Morning Star Publication from the 80's which I totally forgot about. Damn old age. Anyway thank you for all your help and if you need anything from me just ask.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes I found "theophany records" after I'd said all that lol. Yes, I'm not an expert on these things but use whichever seems best to you. Merkin's mum 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes/improvements

As you can see, I've done quite a bit per WP:BOLD. One of the main changes is I removed a bit that added nothing specifically about Theistic Satanism, or Satanism, it just went on about differences in the concept of Satan between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, all of which is covered in the article on Satan. Plus I added a lot of stuff, including lots of references. Hope you all like most of it- feel free to edit it of course.:) Sticky Parkin 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC) (P.S. That was me, Merky, I've just changed my username.:) ) Sticky Parkin 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To bad we can't drop the "Theistic" and call this artical "Satanism" but hey Great Job sticky!Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] page being wierd

I couldn't save my changes this afternoon and bits of the article kept disappearing. hopefully be ok in a bit? Sticky Parkin 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up in prep for GA nomination

Hi, just a note to say I'm working through the article to do some relatively cosmetic tidy up and tagging in view of the prospect of this article going for GA nomination/status. The article appears to be reasonable well sourced - so far so good! I've run out of time to continue right now, but I'll work some more over the next day or two. Coldmachine^Talk 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not really tied up in this. The article isn't anywhere near GA status, it clearly fails the 2nd and 4th criteria. Most of the "sources" are from fiction, personal websites, vanity publishers or books that only deal with the subject in a peripheral manner. The article was created because some self-identified Satanist editors don't like to be associated with Anton LaVey's modern Church of Satan (and I can't blame them). There is no historical record or academic or scholarly study or recognition of "Theistic Satanism" as a unique or specific sub-sect of Satanism as an umbrella term which is why the attempt at sourcing relies on personal websites and the synthesis of material from those unreliable sources into an article.

Your best bet would be a reincorporation of the good material here (of which there is A LOT) back into the original Satanism article. From there you can draw clear divergences between different interpretation and manifestation of "Satanism" with tighter and more verifiable material. I've been inactive from wikipedia for some time but this is a project that has been gnawing at me and I would like to help. NeoFreak (talk) 21:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all I'm unconnected with the article or its subject matter; I was asked to come and take a look to see if I could make improvements to raise the quality of the article since several editors had apparently expressed an interest in raising the level to GA. I'm tagging the article as I've been requested to do as an outside neutral party and while I looked in I noticed some grammar needed fixing and the like: these are all relatively minor fixes but will help point people in the right direction I'd imagine. Second of all, without taking a look at your contribution history I would wager from the tone of your reply here that you have some personal involvement on this matter. If you feel the article is problematic or lacking in WP:RS then why don't you assist the rest of us by improving it? Coldmachine^Talk 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On the sources: I'm seeing in the reference list works which have been published by notable companies including the OUP, Barnes and Noble, Routledge, and so on and so forth. I'll examine the reliability of sources at a later date, but at a cursory glance there's several which appear to be fine. Perhaps you could list those which you feel are not reliable? Coldmachine^Talk 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've just re-read this to make certain I understand the application of sources here. It's absolutely fine to cite sources from 'fringe' groups or organisations which refer to their own beliefs and subject matter and "if correctly attributed as being such, to detail the views of the proponents of that subject". Hope that helps. Coldmachine^Talk 22:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually assuming that you'd been asked to take a look and had no prior involvment. I don't really have a "personal involvement", I don't practice or prescribe to any of the "faith groups" in this or any other Satanist article and I don't have that extensive of an editing history either. The extent of my involvement was an interest in writing a deserving Satanist article whe I found it in horrible shape about a year ago and keeping some rubbish out of the old versions.

On the sources I'm not saying that they'll all bad but that alot a significant amount are either unreliable or prone to synthesis, the later being a particular concern. To be honest the whole article is a POV Fork but it has alot of good material. The RS criteria has been reworded since I've been gone so I'll have to read it again before I get into semantics. If you're wanting to wikiGnome the article to just help clean it up then fine but it's not close to meeting GA criteria with just a facelift. I'll get back to you soon with some particulars on the sources if you disagree in general with my position on WP:V, WP:SYN and WP:CFORK. Thanks for taking the time to sink some work into the article. NeoFreak (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick addition after reviewing the clause of RS you linked. It seems to be the same thing as the old policy on primary sources with some additional clarity and window dressing. As it was before I left and as it is now per RS such sources: should not be contentious, involve claims made about third parties and Articles should not be based primarily on such sources. Also when using primary sources it can only be about the actual source, in this instance mainly internet groups or small community Satanic Churches/organizations. This is supposed to be an article about a religious movement, not a specific group with no editorial oversight. NeoFreak (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think the article as it stands is a POV fork? There are people who call themselves Theistic Satanist, as opposed to LaVeyan Satanist, and this is what they believe. That's not a POV- they exist and have been mentioned in WP:RS. I suppose more could be added about the LaVeyan view of Theistic Satanism? Any sources are for the views of the groups themselves, and I don't think any source has been used that describes itself as "fiction"- unless you mean Huysman's La Bas, in which case, the dubiousness of his claims is mentioned and discussed in the article. I like to think that this article's improved a little over the last month. I'm not sure what you mean about "This is supposed to be an article about a religious movement, not a specific group with no editorial oversight" as the article discusses a range of groups, not any specific one, and includes criticisms others have made of them. Websites are needed to show the various groups' own views and practices, which is an acceptable use as Coldmachine says. So- what would you like to see in this aticle to address your concerns? Is it worded wrongly in some way? Would you like more of LaVeyan's/other satanist's opinions of Theistic Satanists? It already includes one source that says Theistic Satanists may be psychotic.:) Sticky Parkin 11:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no I'm not saying that this is a biased article, I'm sorry to have given that impression. What I really should have said is this is a Content Fork. I think that simply sighting the "nutshell" on the fork guideline is clear enough: "Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.".

Part of what I was describing was Huysmans work. I have no problem with Huysmans as a literary figure (I'm actually a Huysmans fanatic) but I don't think he's acceptable as a source on Theistic Satanism.

The other issue I had was with the primary sources used here. Lets for example use the section Values in Theistic Satanism in particular the claims about some Satanists beliefs on the lineage of "Yahweh" and "Satan" (refs 42 thru 45). By using a particular church which by all measures seems to be primarily Internet based and has no credential or editorial oversight you create the need to both Synthesize that information to build this article and use weasel words because they cannot claim to represent an idea such as Theistic Satanism (TS). If we were building an article on the "Cult of the Ram" (the source of those refs) then we could in fact use those as primary sources because those statements would both be reflective of the article's subject as a whole and satisfy the needs of reliable sources as that source was only being used to describe itself, as is required. I hope that clears that up some.

As to "what I'd like to see" I'd like the good and properly sourced material here be reincorporated back into the Satanism article. TS is not a recognized movement apart from Satanism in general by academic or scholarly sources. Of course in occult writings of varying veracity you can find a mind boggling sub-classification of many concepts but this is not a noted one by theologians, historians or sociologists. The concept of "Theistic Satanism" is in direct response to the perceived "hijacking" of the term "Satanist" by LaVey and atheists of varying colors. The proper formatting, in my opinion, is the reincorporation of this info back into the parent Satanism article with a brief history, mention of the modern LaVeyian movement and a sub article for the CoS as an organization. NeoFreak (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(I hope you'll forgive this long reply etc.) Do any of the mentions of specific groups and ideas claim that all T.S.'s believe them? If so please change them or I'll change them, as I didn't intentionally write that. People have said about the use of 'some believe' and said it should specify who believes it. The thing is I do think more T.S.'s believe certain of the ideas than for instance the CoBG. I have thought that it could specify who each time instead though, as I know 'some believe' it should :):) I'm flexible about that. As to the values, I think some of them are held in common by many T.Ses- the importance of self-development etc. But that can be changed too if you like and it specify who claims to believe each bit, it incorporated into 'diversity of views' or sections reorganized in some way. As to Huysman, the article specifically says he may not have visited a mass- issues like this are why that sections called "historical inspiration for" rather than "history of" as it once said- because we know too little to be able to claim it's history without qualifying that. I'm sorry if the heading doesn't make that clear- Isuppose it doesn't, actually. That can be changed.:) Sticky Parkin 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The title etc.

This is mainly in reply to NeoFreak but for general discussion and to stop my reply looking so huge lol. If you look for instance in fundamentalist christian writings their 'satanism' is not that meant by the Church of Satan, (which already has it's own article, by the way, so one of your ideas is already partly sorted :) )Yes as you can see above in the comments by Margolin, T.S.' would love to be able to just call this article 'Satanism'. They consider Satanism to be the worship of Satan . Yes you are right that they see what's happened (mainly unintentionally, perhaps, at least by LaVey) as hijacking of the term. The thing is for a while the article 'Satanism' was solely about LaVeyan Satanism and they were trying to propound that they were the first organized "Satanism" (sort of right in a way, in so much as according to LaVey's definition of the word) and pretty much (arguably, according to Margolin, Diane Vera etc) using it just to discuss their religion. It's really unfortunate sharing of the same term, over which massive arguments took place.:) And so it was decided (before I got involved to an real extent) that there would be separate articles for Theistic Satanism and LaVeyan Satanism, as the two 'religions' couldn't work together. Of course the terms aren't often used independently of each other, but it was a way of labelling it (which also happens in some academic articles and books, to help them distinguish what they mean by the word "Satanism" if their using it in a separate way.) "Satanism" might as well be just a disambig page. If you prfer, they could be called Satanism (theistic) and Satanism (LaVeyan) as is the convention for many wiki pages where the article names are really a disambiguation in themselves for the reader. For instance, we have Coven (band)- the article isn't called "musical coven" or something.:). As to the CoS/LaVey there are also a number of articles about particular beliefs of theirs/ideas of LaVey, I think. At least, there's one for Sigil of Baphomet, for instance.LaVeyan beliefs/LaVey's work is covered in several articles on wiki- and perhaps rightly so as quite a number of people believe them. Sticky Parkin 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and just to say I have no objection personally to the articles being merged, as long as they're dealt with fairly- on the other hand, having separate articles has stopped some of the constant edit wars and one group claiming the other don't exist or something. I just got into editing the T.S. article because I happened to go on it, see that it wasn't very good, and start trying to improve it. This was easier for me than trying to edit the LaVeyan articles as the ideas are more intriguing to me so I enjoy looking for sources etc and like to think I've improved the article a bit. But I might have a go at writing a reasonable "Satanism" article, in my userspace. Though I don't want to 'burn out" when it comes to these articles lol.:) Sticky Parkin 14:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be game at writing a new Satanism article on one of our user spaces but be warned, it might be a long, frustrating process. We'd have to bring alot of people in on it to avoid an edit war when we incorporate it but I think it could be worth it.NeoFreak (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually support keeping the articles separate. I think what User:Sticky Parkin has said about edit warring over at Satanism is an all too real possibility. This isn't a POV fork, in the same way that (forgive my utter lack of knowledge on the subject but it's an analogy) Roman catholic church and Protestantism aren't. Coldmachine^Talk 08:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks for that, it's a great analogy.:) User:The Haunted Angel has said we shouldn't merge them as they're two different things/religions. He was also concerned about the length but as you can see from the scruffy prototype when I shoved them both in together with LaVeyan Satanism to see what happened, (ignore the titles and where I haven't yet changed that it says 'theisic' Satanism most of the way through, and there's still a bit to be summarised and added from LaVeyan Satanism.), it's not overly long for a wiki article, though too long for my attention sp... Sticky Parkin 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)