• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

LaVeyan Satanism and What Makes Satanism Authentic?

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
One very well recognized feature of modern Satanism is infighting, especially between those like the LaVeyan Satanists who feel they have the one authentic form of Satanism, and those who feel that Satanism is something more than just that put forth by the Church of Satan (CoS). I’d like to address this topic and leave it open for debate.

LaVeyan Satanism is atheistic, and certainly the most well-known form of modern Satanism. While there were a few groups here and there before LaVey – such as the Lady of Endor Coven and Brotherhood of Saturn – LaVey and his CoS were really the spearhead of the lasting Satanic movement. This is all but undeniable, and all modern Satanism owes LaVey a great debt. But that that somehow make LaVeyan Satanism the start and end of Satanism? According to Peter Gilmore, one of the current main spokesman for the CoS, the answer is yes. Gilmore believes Satanism starts with atheism, and cast all other so called “Satanists” as “devil-worshippers” who are “on some level insane”. Ironically I see no difference between this and how Christians treat all “Satanists”, but that’s the CoS for you. This brings us to a problem – why should Satanism value one view simply because it is traditional? LaVey’s philosophy was very focused on individualism, rejection of authority, and so on. And in fact, academic studies classify many other groups as “Satanic”, including Luciferian and Setian groups. In order for LaVeyan Satanists to then claim they are the only authentic group requires to deny objective research into the topic in favor of one’s own religion’s view on the topic. It seems hard to argue that this is something LaVey would (at least originally) have approved of.

This also takes us into the question of whether the CoS was atheistic from the beginning at all. It of course seems that LaVey was mostly atheistic himself, but he was not the sole force behind the founding of the CoS. In fact he had been hosting “magical circles” in his home for other occultists long before, many of whom were esoterically inclined. Even the large split in the 70’s, leading to massive decline for the CoS and birth of groups like the Temple of Set (ToS), was due to LaVey’s increased focus on financial gain rather than esoteric studies. So when Gilmore says that Satanism begins and ends with atheism, he’s kind of ignoring the first decade or so of LaVey’s occult activities and associations.

Some great academic studies are coming out these days on modern Satanism, especially works such as “The Invention of Satanism” and “The Devil’s Party”, as well as slightly older texts like the fantastic “Lords of the Left Hand Path”. Works from individuals and groups that descend from Satanism are also more and more common thanks to the internet, giving a much wider picture of the path. For one thing, the divide between atheism and theism is something that obviously does not underly all Satanism, even when these groups are connected by otherwise similar ideology. Satanism is now seen more as a religious movement, along side yet separate from movements such as counter-culture, new ageism, and the numerous movements that came out of the 1960’s. Underlying these paths are a focus on the individual and individualism, non-union with the culture/universe/god, a positive attitude towards transgressive behavior, a dismissal of reactive behavior, doubt towards “authority”, dogma, things of that nature, and obviously things like self-identification, tracing a group’s decent from another Satanic group (like the ToS), an admiration of Satanic symbolism, so forth and so on.

So, groups or individual philosophies that basically rely on LaVey’s actions are part of the “Satanic movement” or “Satanism”. Terms such as Western Left Hand Path have been put forth to replace “Satanism” for convenience sake, but the two terms are identical from an external and objective standpoint. Of course, some groups may be more questionable than others based on the criteria for what is “Satanism”, such as those that rely on authority or dogma, who seek union with God or acceptance from culture, who feel negative about transgressive behavior, etc. Ironical, the modern CoS is one of the prime examples of this based on their insistence of being the “only valid Satanism”. Perhaps LaVeyan Satanism died with the selling of ranks in the 70s?
 

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
I think the US LaVeyans who organise what one can only call happenings to offend religious people owe more the the other militant atheists than they do to the philosophy of the COS. In fact, they remind me more of the "teens acting up" type of "Satanist". I have no more time for them than I have for any atheists: "insensate men ... whose souls are mutilated ... irrational, barren, and useless" as Maximus of Tyre put it.

I have reservations about Neopaganism in general, but I find theistic Satanism more comprehensible, and much more of a genuine religion, than Wicca.
 

Adramelek

Setian
Premium Member
Perhaps LaVeyan Satanism died with the selling of ranks in the 70s?

The OP is an excellent analysis. The contrasts between the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set could not be sharper. During the 1970's the CoS was becoming very metaphysically philosophical, not just a social club but an actual Satanic religious institution with very intelligent and dedicated members such as Michael Aquino who viewed the Church as a real experimentation in Black Magick and a vehicle of accumulating the knowledge, truth, and undefiled wisdom of the Prince of Darkness. Anton LaVey, though he was an important opener of the way, on a human level was not prepared for this expanding evolution of the Church's Infernal Mandate. This was his downfall, and the CoS crisis of 1975 was the beginning of the decline of the Church. After that, the CoS became and remains stagnated as nothing more than basically a cult of Anton LaVey's personality.

The Temple of Set, however, at its very founding was/is considered literal. The ToS was not just founded by Aquino alone but with the help of many of his colleagues in the former CoS priesthood. The ToS was and has always been understood as the reconsecration of Set's Temple and Order on Earth, its name is taken literally and its purpose very seriously. It is not a social club or an online forum but rather a legitimate school of the Black Arts for only the most serious, dedicated, and capable of students. The ToS is not a cult of Michael Aquino's personality, since him there have been four other High Priests. The position of High Priest/Priestess of Set as I understand can be held by an individual Initiate IV*+ only up to 9 years according to the structure or by-laws of the ToS organization.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
From Satanists themselves, the idea is that LaVey basically started all this. The TOS is a 'philosophy', as I've been told. /So are other religions?/
Seems like a lot of ideas being presented without much clarity. That's fine, we'll go with LaVey basically starting modern ''Satanism'', and if some satanists want to argue that, they can.
 
Last edited:

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
From Satanists themselves, the idea is that LaVey basically started all this. The TOS is a 'philosophy', as I've been told. /So are other religions?/
Seems like a lot of ideas being presented without much clarity. That's fine, we'll go with LaVey basically starting modern ''Satanism'', and if some satanists want to argue that, they can.

If you point out what is unclear we may be able to elaborate.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
Is the TOS theistic?

Well I've never been a member personally, but all the writings say theism is only a concern at III° or above.

It's also unclear as to how an atheistic religious group could be the one to start what is traditionally thought of as a theistic religious /adherence,, 'Satan' worship'. Yes, bringing something to popularity, and having it share a name with some other religious perspective, is one thing, however , how does that difference in theological adherence not affect the ''difference'', in religion.
/note, i'm not trying to repeat arguments in the other thread. if we approach that, perhaps a new thread, is necessary.

The CoS was formed by both atheists and esoteric individuals, so it wasn't really an atheistic religion.
 

Adramelek

Setian
Premium Member
Is the TOS theistic?

The Temple of Set is a philosophy and a religion. Most ToS Setians II*+ I have known do believe in and/or have become convinced through personal experience(s) that Set, the Prince of Darkness, is a divine Entity which exists in reality.
 
Last edited:

Adramelek

Setian
Premium Member
It's also unclear as to how an atheistic religious group could be the one to start what is traditionally thought of as a theistic religious /adherence,, 'Satan' worship'.

This is a popular misconception of the original Church of Satan which began as a social club, asking the relevant questions of human existence. The original CoS began primarily as an agnostic group.
 
Last edited:

Aštra’el

Aštara, Blade of Aštoreth

I feel like no one man or woman or religious movement invented "Satanism", I feel like human Nature invented "Satanism". Anyone who worships the malevolent sides of their own human Nature, or collective human Nature (and perhaps even the gods that embody those particular sides of human Nature), is in my opinion a "Satanist".


 

Perditus

へびつかい座
I have a difficult time viewing the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set as atheistic organizations.

They both practice invoking the dark as an acknowledged power greater than themselves. How is that atheistic?
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
I have a difficult time viewing the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set as atheistic organizations.

They both practice invoking the dark as an acknowledged power greater than themselves. How is that atheistic?

The ToS is an openly theistic organization that accepts atheists. Much different from the CoS.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
<...>

So, groups or individual philosophies that basically rely on LaVey’s actions are part of the “Satanic movement” or “Satanism”. Terms such as Western Left Hand Path have been put forth to replace “Satanism” for convenience sake, but the two terms are identical from an external and objective standpoint. Of course, some groups may be more questionable than others based on the criteria for what is “Satanism”, such as those that rely on authority or dogma, who seek union with God or acceptance from culture, who feel negative about transgressive behavior, etc. Ironical, the modern CoS is one of the prime examples of this based on their insistence of being the “only valid Satanism”. Perhaps LaVeyan Satanism died with the selling of ranks in the 70s?
Individualism and antinomianism were around long before LaVey. (Just sayin')
 

Onyx

Active Member
Premium Member
Thought experiment:

A religious leader states that all outsiders are "on some level insane". He states that when it come to other views "I just have complete contempt for them and have no contact with them at all." That's clear cut fundAmentalism, and Peter Gilmore's position in his own words.

https://en.m.wikinews.org/wiki/Satanism:_An_interview_with_Church_of_Satan_High_Priest_Peter_Gilmore

I think what makes Satanism (and other WLHP religions) authentic is the ethical pursuit of self as one chooses.

"Satanism" has become an umbrella term, and simply saying "I'm a Satanist" is not sufficient. It's unfortunate that opportunities for otherwise gainful communication usually devolve into endless quips and quarrels over terminology or events that occurred decades ago. What a waste of time.
 

1137

Here until I storm off again
Premium Member
^


^

Which is it? You stated that CoS wasn't really atheist, then you state that it is 'much different', from the theistic ToS

The CoS was made of both atheists and theists. When the materialistic side won out the CoS became dogmatically atheistic and the theists founded the ToS. What is so hard about this?
 
Top