False David Spangler Quote

Are you his mother or something? 

It is quoted from his own book "Reflections on the Christ" published on 1978. Are you blind, SSS?

[W]hom amongst you have actually acquired a copy of said reference[?]

The correct way to have structured that question would have been to've used "who":

Who amongst you has actually acquired a copy of said reference?

Just fyi.

“AGE OF DECEIT: Fallen Angels and the New World Order”

Link to video: Fallen angels and the new world order

On page 133 of David Spangler's book "Reimagination of the World", available publicly on Archive.org, Spangler directly REFUTES the idea of advocating any "Luciferian Initiation" (he spells it as "Luciferic initiation"), although, to be clear, he does on the same page admit to quoting something similar, but argues that he did not mean it in the context spoken, but rather believes Satan and Lucifer to be different things. He directly refutes the idea that he thinks anyone should be initiated into Satan or evil, which he directly says he does not.

However, what Spangler fails to realize is that in fact, his new age definition of what he considers Luciferianism IS in fact evil, even though he denies it, because it is directly opposed to God and the ways of God, and therefore, Spangler indeed means something similar to the quoted meaning by Bible-believers.

Spangler is a typical New Age Satanist - please note that Satanism is NOT the worship of the entity of evil called Satan or the devil, but rather is the worship of the principles of Satan. Satanism is about worshipping the self, and using the principles of the real devil while at the same time denying the existence of the devil as a real being.

In so doing, Satanists call good evil, and evil good. Therefore Spangler in typical fashion uses this twisted and inverted ideal of morality to justify that he didn't mean what the "fundamentalists" (true Christians) say that he meant, but in fact he DID mean that, he just twisted it in typical Satanist fashion by suggesting that he doesn't agree with "evil", but his definition of good is in fact the very evil the "fundamentalists" are speaking of, but he considers evil to be good, so in his mind when he says he doesn't want anyone to be initiated into "evil", he is simply referring to the entity of the devil and the Christian view of evil, which he denies exists even though he wholly subscribes to such evil, because the entire new age movement is inherently evil, and that's what he wants everyone initiated into - not a spirituality that he misunderstands, but in fact the very thing he believes.

Before I post the real direct quote, let me clarify that while the KJV translation does use the word "Lucifer" once, this word is not in the original text of the Bible (the Septuagint). Instead, words are used referring to light, and this is not directly referring to Satan or the devil, but rather in the context of Nebuchadnezzar being brought down. The person described will die a mortal death, and this alone is proof it cannot be describing Satan.

New age thinkers, who oppose God in service of their sorcery (new age is sorcery), often use "Lucifer" to refer to a principle, an idea, which is the idea of Satanism, and the worship of the natural world and denial of the One True God as Creator and Lord. This is indeed what true Bible-believing Christians would call "evil", and the work of Satan, even though Satanists and Luciferians may directly deny serving Satan because they don't believe Satan exists as a real entity, and therefore they divide the meaning of Lucifer from Satan, even though in principle Luciferianism and Satanism (which denies the existence of the entity of Satan) do in fact serve the very Satan they deny exists, because their ideas come directly from Satan himself. 

Here is the direct quote which you can verify for yourself:

"In that lecture, I was careful to distinguish between Satan, a term I used for the presence of evil in the world, and Lucifer. It is that part of the lecture that the fundamentalist writers never refer to; nor do they refer to my definition of how I was using the term Lucifer. At the end of my talk, I said that one of the hallmarks in a person’s life and journey into the Christ was when he or she confronted his or her own shadow and dealt with its contents. As a joke, really, at the very end, I said, ‘“We could call this the ‘Luciferic initiation) ”’ by which, in context, I meant the encounter with our shadow side.

Of course, in recent years, as some fundamentalists felt threatened by New Age ideas, finding a New Age writer advocating a Luciferic initiation was like the Watergate investigators finding Nixon’s ‘smoking gun’ tape. It just confirmed their worst ~ fears and gave them ammunition to bolster their opinions. I understand that, even though I am saddened by their need to take statements out of context in ways that distort and reverse their meaning. I assure you, though, I have no interest in anyone being initiated and taken over by Lucifer, Satan, the Devil, or whatever image most represents evil to any religious person. Quite the opposite, in fact."
("Reimagination of the World" by David Spangler, page 133)

New Age occultists, Satanists, Luciferians, etc are quick to deny the accusations and say they believe the opposite, but they are both right and wrong. They are wrong because they do not really believe the opposite, but they are right because in their mind, the definitions of good and evil are inverted, so they really believe they are the good ones and that those following the true God are the evil ones, so he doesn't lie when he says he believes the "opposite" of what the so-called "fundamentalists" accuse him of; but rather, he uses satanic mental gymnastics to redefine and invert the definitions of good and evil in his mind and then goes on to refute it.

This is the mission of Satan: to invert good and evil, and thereby deceive the whole world into believing they are righteous when they are, in fact, evil.