Talk:Jakob Lorber

NPOV problems
This article needs to be rewritten from a more neutral point of view. As it stands, it accepts the accuracy of Lorber's visions, and Christianity in general, as undisputed fact. Adding NPOV message. --Gwalla 06:41, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * NPOV message had been removed without any evidence of editing in accordance with Gwalla's comment. Re-added NPOV message.


 * C'mon, it's still not neutral. The claims about Lorber having known modern physics before it was developed are not substantiated in this article. Re-re-added NPOV message.


 * -- Did much research, made significant changes, added new material and footnotes, removed some portions which were not easily supported in a few words. Also changed the language to NPOV throughout, understanding that many of the points made by Lorber cultivate faith, which is itself outside the scope of NPOV, which is a viewpoint predicated in skepticism. I sought for the point of equilibrium which handles both concerns, and anticipate future additions and corrections to refine this. Jds 21:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

critic litteratur
Gassmann Lothar: "Kleines Sekten-Handbuch", Lorberianer Seiten 92-95, MABO-Bücher Schacht-Audorf, 2005, ISBN 3-9810275-9-7

Horst Reller, Hans Krech & Matthias Kleiminger (Hrsg.): Lorber-Bewegung - Lorber-Gesellschaft - Lorberianer. In: Handbuch Religiöse Gemeinschaften und Weltanschauungen, Gütersloh 5. Auflage 2000, 214-226.

Obst Helmut: "Apostel und Propheten der Neuzeit", Vandenhoeck et Ruprecht in Göttingen, ISBN 3-525-55438-9, 233-264

Pöhlmann, Matthias: Lorber-Bewegung, durch Jenseitswissen zum Heil?. 2002, ISBN 376217704X

Stettler-Schär, Antoinette: Jakob Lorber: zur Psychopathologie eines Sektenstifters Bern 1966

Cleanup
This articles needs better sources and re-formatting sources using ref-tags. As the current sources are rather week, reformatting them looked like a waste of time to me, otherwise I'd have started. --Pjacobi (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation for change
Thanks for your understanding. If you want to introduce criticism, you will need to say whose criticism this is. I appreciate your familiarity with Lorber's writings, and it would be great to have you contribute here, but if you cannot accept this simple point, it will be hopeless. What you are doing is, you are giving your own, original criticism of the work. You should publish this elsewhere, as Wikipedia is not for the publication of original work. Also, please note that for discussion of the Great Gospel of John in particular, there is the Great Gospel of John article, whither I have moved your contributions on the book's content. You can give a neutral account of the book's content by simply referring to chapter or page of the GGoJ itself, but you cannot critically review such content without giving a reference to a particular critic (such as the German protestant organization I've linked to above). Also, I am afraid that if you do not read German, it will be almost impossible for you to contribute substantially, since almost all literature on this topic is in German. I am not aware that Lorber made much of an impact outside of German-speaking countries, and consequently most (nearly all) criticism of Lorber will also have been published in German. This is mostly a topic of a German Neuoffenbarer Christian sect, to a lesser extent also affecting Austria and Switzerland, but as far as I can see mostly unknown outside the German language cultural sphere. Perhaps you can try google's translation service to get some idea of the criticism section in the German article, or we can work together here and I can try to find references for the points you raise. I will in any case try to improve the "criticism" section based on the material in the de-wiki article. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 08:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

ok, in this edit I give a brief summary of the criticism referenced in the de-wiki article. You will note that it is mostly based on the 2003 EZW publication. You will also note that each point is referenced with the name of the individual behind the criticism along with publication details. You will also note that EZW rejects the "revealed" nature of Lorber's writings while still respectfully accepting it as "pious poetry". No ranting about "cults". If you find further quotable criticism, by all means add it, but not without proper references. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

this is going too far now. We have, who is here to denounce the Lorber movement as a "cult", and then we have (where it is safe to assume NR stands for "New Revelation") who is here to tout Lorber as a prophet. And quite apparently neither of them can write encyclopedic content to save their lives. I must ask you to stop and familiarize yourselves with our project basics. Begin at WP:5P. --dab (𒁳) 11:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I took out the history. Page was so cluttered. I have learned more now. Thanks for your patience. I am getting better :)

(talk)

nationality/ethnicity
I agree that the Austrian 'ethnicity' was in the formative stage during Lorber's lifetime, and that consequently the only unambiguously correct adjective that can be applied is "a Styrian mystic". However, it is my impression that Lorber is commonly referred to as an "Austrian mystic" in literature, purely de facto, and of course Wikipedia must follow common usage. --dab (𒁳) 11:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no need to use anachronisms, especially because in Slovenia it is frequently mentioned that Lorber was a Slovene prophet/mystic/musician and the surname of his mother also sounds Slovene (Kavčič is a common Slovene surname). It is also common to refer to Lorber as a German. WP:NAME is irrelevant here as it concerns only article titles. There's no need to use ambiguous adjectives in the text and to unnecessary provoke national sentiments. --Eleassar my talk 14:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

ok - I see that the "Austrian" epithet isn't used all that frequently. It will be fine to just call him "Styrian". You are also correct that WP:NAME wasn't the correct page to point to here, what I was saying is that we'll call Lorber whatever our sources call him, including "Austrian", "German" or "Slovenian". I understand that all three are arguable but problematic, so let's just stick with "Styrian". Btw, Kaniža is just the name of the village where he is born. His mother was apparently called Tautscher. Whence the Kavčič? --dab (𒁳) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Correcting myself but perhaps a Germanized version of Tavčar? Also a common Slovene surname. --Eleassar my talk 17:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

not really relevant, sinc this isn't about"did Lorber have Slovene blood?" in the first place. It is simply about "do our quotable sources refer to him as Austrian, German and/or Slovenian?". The facts are simply that he was born in to a German-speaking family in Styria, at the time a province of the Austrian Empire, but in what is now part of Slovenia. "German-speaking" may be taken as "he was German", "at the time in the Austrian Empire" may be taken as "he was Austrian", and "now in Slovenia" may be taken "he was Solvenian". These epithets are interpretations of the facts, and I am happy with whatever can be shown to be used in decent literature on Lorber. --dab (𒁳) 17:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

For the record, and in the interest of accuracy, Lorber was born when Styria was still part of the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE was dissolved when he was four, and he lived in the Austrian Empire for most of his life. --dab (𒁳) 10:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Theology section
The theology section have been deleted because it also appears in the Great Gospel of John. I have included some more content to the summary of the Great Gospel of John on this page. Hope you can agree.. (Torchrunner) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Occult roots
Even though Jakob Lorber lived only later than Emanuel Swedenborg, he was highly respected by Lorber. In his second book, 'The Spiritual Son' part 2 (1846), chapter 14, Lorber mentions Swedenborg as the reincarnated prophet Daniel from the bible.

Emanuel Swedenborg however was the founder of the Swedenborgianism Church. The Swedenborgian Rite was named after Emanuel Swedenborg and The Supreme Council of the Rite was composed initially of members of the Swedenborgian Church. Beswick stated that the genuine Swedenborgian Rite was known as the "Primitive and Original Rite of Symbolic Masonry". It consisted of six degrees: I. Temple Masonry or York Rite: a. Entered Apprentice b. Fellow Craft c. Master Mason 2. Primitive and Original Rite of Symbolic Masonry: d. Enlightened Freemason, or Green Brother e. Sublime Freemason, or Blue Brother f. Perfect Freemason, or Red Brother All the officers of high rank were members of the Swedenborgian Church,.

This Swedenborg Rite (freemasonary), was later eagerly supported by occultists Theodor Reuss (close friend of occultist Madame Blavatsky [] (New Age spirituality founder, who also formed the Société Spirité for occult phenomenaIrregular) and Leopold Engel (author of the 11th book of 'The Great Gospel of John' which was started by Jakob Lorber). Both Engel and Reuss worked together to revive the illuminati, which has as its's goal a one world religion and a one world government.


 * I included this section. I did so much research to bring this all together. Why was this just deleted without any explanation?

(Torchrunner (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)) (talk)
 * You touched on the reason right there. Please consult WP:OR however, beyond that, there have been concerns about recent edits to this article and so I reverted to what I saw as the last stable version to encourage discussion and consensus building on the edits here rather than edit warring.Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The plot works like this: A satanic order was planned, as described in this article http://www.watch.pair.com/new-scripture.html to bring about a "new" bible, which will work well with a new world order and a one world religion.

Christianity is the only religion that does not preach good works as a requirement for salvation, but presents Christ crucified as saviour to the world, for those who would believe on Him. His blood as atonement for our sins. From the inside out He then wants to change us into His likeness and image, not through self improvement programs.

All other religions preaches some kind of performance program with which a person can eventually work their own salvation and inner cleansing.

In order to "convert" Christians to this works program mindsets, a clever plan was derived, use scribes with "New Revelations" and bring in subtle twists, so subtle, bit for bit, beginning with the bible as a basis, and in the process concert people from Christianity to New Age occult religion.

This satanic set was started with Swedenborg, which was the father of the Rite of Swedenborg, freemasonary. Freemasonary on it's highest levels is about worship of lucifer, but there is such secrecy about their organisation it is not that well known. In fact, they swear for their tongues to be cut out should the talk from the inner circle.

Swedenborg set the stage and prepared the way for Lorber. Lorber added to Swedenborg and "scribed" in the same occult spirit as swedenborg. Then occultist Leopold Engel, who was a key person in the Illuminati - see link. http://www.illuminaten.org/geschichte-des-illuminatenordens. The illuminati wants to bring about a new world order. See also http://www.mastermason.com/luxocculta/reuss.htm and. http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Introduction/lovedoc.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(Torchrunner (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Ok, I am in danger of breaking WP:CIVIL at this point so I'm taking a break from this article until tomorrow. The last thing I go, for the fifth time, read wikipedia's policies on original research, seriously, read it.

Ok, but maybe somebody in the world would want to look into what I am saying and write an article about this, bringing these things together. I have not written articles before, so I think there may be somebody better up to it, but if no interest I can try and publish it elsewhere. This thing is so big and so important and it affects many many lives. Lorber readers are not just exposed to some harmless reading for entertainment or religious perspective, they are exposed to wicked evil. (Torchrunner (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes, please publish your original resarch elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Singularity42 (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

See (Torchrunner (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

Great Gospel of John
I have also read the Great Gospel of John. When I add a summary on what is in it, it gets deleted, but the other peoples summaries that doesn't talk about the central teachings, they may remain?

The centre theme of the bible according to orthodox christianity is the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and the blood of Jesus Christ that brings atonement for sin. The centre theme of the Great Gospel of John is love, purity and works of love.

I also included from the wikipedia salvation an extraction from what is considered salvation according to Eastern Religions and placed it here in order to show the resemblance to Lorber's work, but that was also deleted.

I am going through a lot of trouble to get verifiable sources for the things I write, I don't write just opinions, and I don't understand why my contributions keeps being deleted.

Here is a direct copy from wikipedia salvation I can provide proof how Lorber presents a gospel that is just like that of Eastern Religion, based on the description below.

"Judaism, Christianity and Islam—the three monotheistic religions of the world—regard salvation as liberation from the bondage of sin and re-establishing a personal communion with God.[2]

Judaism posits collective salvation for the people of Israel.

In Christianity Jesus is the source of salvation and faith in his saving power is stressed.

Islam emphasizes submission to Allah.

Eastern religions tend to stress self-help through individual discipline and practice, sometimes over the course of many lifetimes, though in Mahayana Buddhism bodhisattva and certain buddhas may act as intervening divine agents."

I request for a rewrite of the summary of what the Great Gospel is about from a more neutral ground.

If you have read it you will see how vast amounts of pages are spent on fable stories of people reincarnated from other planets, on elves, and on things that have nothing to do with the bible, but which in colourful display loosen the reader up to New Age concepts and reincarnation. But the supporters of Lorber would not want the public to know that, no. Else you won't read the books to start with. For the books starts mild, but gradually it takes you totally over from a biblical mindsets to a New Age mindset, cleverly bringing in a teaching of love over and over to assure you that everything is truthful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 19:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again I have to direct you to WP:OR.Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - editor's should not be trying to prove anything. You can only use reliable sources that comment on Lorber. Dougweller (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

When a person is asked to give a summary of thousands of pages of books, the important things to that person will be highlighted. It can not be neutral. If you asked a person who is currently a Lorber supported to summarize the work he will try and list everything he sees as impressive and bring it out as part of the summary. If you ask me who tried to get the essence of the book and what it is trying to achieve, and looked at the foundations and drive behind many things, I will give you a summary more from a perspective of what is the essence of the book, and what was the very reason it was written for, and the core message it is trying to convey.

When I am going on about salvation, it is because that is the core of the core theme of the book. And it is significantly different from orthodox christianity.

I will proceed to rewrite a summary of the Book, from a neutral perspective, highlighting the essence, and paste it here for your review and approval... (Torchrunner (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Again, for the fourth time, I caution you about WP:OR what we need is not a summary of the book. What we need is information on the commentary of reliable secondary and tertiary sources discussing what makes the book notable.Simonm223 (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what we have currently is largely somebody's summary.

In the Great Gospel of John, the narrator, Jesus, explains that he is the creator of the material universe, which was designed both as a confinement of Satan, and so he could take upon himself the condition of a man. He says he did this to inspire his children who could otherwise not perceive him in his primordial form as a spirit. He gives descriptions of the eons of time involved in creating the Earth. He does so in a manner similar to the modern theory of Evolution all the way up to the point several thousand years ago when Jesus placed Adam upon the Earth, which at the time contained man-like creatures who did not have free will, being simply the most clever of the animals. Readers have noted that Lorber was writing such things before Darwin published his famous insights on evolution in 1859.

In comprehensive manner, the Great Gospel of John continually emphasises the importance of free will. In this book, heaven and hell are presented as conditions already within us, expressed according to whether we live in harmony or contrary to God's divine order. The Great Gospel of John also states that the gospels of John and Matthew were written at the time of the events they chronicle; for instance, Lorber writes that Jesus specifically told Matthew to take notes during the Sermon on the Mount. Such an account seems at first contrary to orthodox Christian theology which typically places the authorship of Matthew some years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that of John even later. However, in the Great Gospel of John the narrator explains how this happened. He claims that there were many writers who described him, including several authors named Matthew, who all wrote similarly over a period of many years. The original author's manuscript is lost today, so there is no extant evidence of its age. (Torchrunner (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC))

This is what I proposed. It comes from the Great Gospel of John and also from the summary of the book itself.

The Great Gospel of John
The Great Gospel of John was written over the course of several years in the middle 1800s, in Austria. Occultist, Leopold Engel, reviver of the Illuminati, in 1891 wrote an addendum in an "11th volume", purportedly also based on interior locution. The Great Gospel is a detailed first-person narrative of Jesus' last three years of ministry on Earth. It is a day by day account of his miracles, healings, and conversations. It is built on the same structure of the original Gospel of John. The biblical gospel of John however places a strong emphasis on grace, whilst in the 'Great Gospel of John', love, and particularly works of love, are emphasised and considered even more important than truth. . Some sections of the biblical Gospel of John are not covered in this writing, whereas large sections are added which does not appear in the biblical Gospel of John.

In the final chapter of the 11th book, closing reason and objective of the book is highlighted by the author himself in the three verses of the chapter.
 * to reveal the physical life of Jesus on earth and what was made visible on earth
 * to emphasise that what happened spiritually has not fully been revealed yet, as the earth is yet to unripe to receive it, even those who adhere to the teachings in the book and to announce a time that will come when this will also be revealed.
 * to encourage the readers to be satisfied with what they have received, for a time will come when the nations will become closer to one another and where the earth will become a place of peace.

(Torchrunner (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC))

Epistle to the Laodiceans
I wrote a section on this writing of Lorber as well, including references for all I said. Why was this deleted?

The letter as it appears in the British Museum currently is included http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Laodiceans

When compared to the one written by Lorber http://www.merkurpublishing.com/letter_of_saint_paul_to_the_laodiceans.htm It is not the same.

Please can we include a section on this. (Torchrunner (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Again, please consult WP:OR.Simonm223 (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This is an example of the type of original research you are posting:
 * "When the two letters are compared they are not remotely the same, proving either that the copy in the Museum is fraudulant or alternatively that Jakob Lorber was not a true prophet."
 * Specifically, read WP:SYNTH (which is a part of WP:OR everyone keeps asking you to read), which specifically says you can't state something like that without a reliable source expressly stating it. You can't use Wikipedia to draw conclusions, even if they are obvious to you. A reliable source has to come to the conclusion first, and then you can write that the source came to the conclusion. Singularity42 (talk) 22:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I will try again... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 04:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think what has been posted goes against WP:SYNTH, but I'm too tired to make a final call. Other editors should review and decide. Singularity42 (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss then, this is what I have in mind:

Lorber claimed to have heard by the inner voice the "lost" letter Paul wrote to the assembly of the Laodiceans, as referred to in Scripture Col4:16. []

A copy of what is presumed by historians to be the original copy is available in the British Museum, as well as on the reference provided for comparison against the letter produced by Lorber.

Publisher of this Lorber manustript explains how during the reading of the letter it will become evidant for which reason this letter is removed from the early church writings. It is stated that this church had fallen away from pure christianity and is being corrected by Paul harshly. The publisher continues to add that the early church felt this an accusation to their conduct and therefore seen to it that it got "lost".

According to 'The reluctant messanger' however, this Epistle to the Laodiceans has been highly esteemed by several learned men of the church of Rome and others and the strongest objection for it not to be included in the bible today was no surviving Greek text and it is stated that The Epistle to the Laodiceans is included in all 18 German Bibles printed prior to Luther's translation. (Torchrunner (talk) 06:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Definitely WP:SYNTH also WP:WEASEL and needs serious copy editing work.Simonm223 (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Theology section
I deleted it earlier, for I do not see the need to have a theology section here and then also in the Great Gospel of John, except if it says the same thing.

I see it is back now, due to the reverts.

I include here a copy of the theology section of the great gospel...

Theology and Religious practice
In chapter 10:17 of the first book of the Great Gospel of John, Lorber explains the gospel of salvation as three steps. Firstly a person needs to master his flesh. Secondly he needs to purify his soul through works of love. Thirdly a person's spirit needs to be awakened from the grave of judgement. These three steps are described as the process of rebirth. In chapter 18:8 the Lord is described to explain to Nicodemus that to be born of water means to be born of humility, and only then by the Spirit of Truth, which is described to be impossible to be received by an inpure spirit. This is how entry to the Kingdom of God is described to be made possible. This differs from the biblical message of salvation as per orthodox christianity who claims that salvation is available to "whosoever believes" in Jesus, no matter how sinful their past, all because of the love and kindness of God.

In chapter 62 of the first book of the Great Gospel of John, the mission of Jesus on Earth is described as to invite those from darkness to the Kingdom of love (via his message of love). Verse 9 describes that up to date, not one soul could, when she left her body, lose herself from the earth and that countless suffer in the night of the earth. It is described that when Jesus ascends to heaven he will open the heavens and in exactly the same way every person will enter eternal life. It is described that this is the task of universal reconciliation which the Messiah has to accomplish and absolutely nothing else. Jesus came to Earth, according to Lorber's writings, to bring people to the right path, through friendly and loving teaching. ("Great gospel of John V11 188:11) The 'Great Gospel' does not place emhpasis on the crucifixion of Christ, nor on the blood of Jesus for the atonement of sin, but emphasises only the teaching of love and it's adherance by followers as means to salvation. Lorber does not reveal Jesus as one of three in a holy Trinity. In chapter 197 of the seventh book of the Great Gospel of John it is described that within his being is two aspects. The one is love and the other is the outpouring of a flame of life. These two is then considered one. Jesus alone is considered God (Monophysitism).

In chapter 23:6 of the first book of the Great Gospel of John, it is explained that only one thing is necessary, and that is to adhere to the teaching of Jesus. Baptism is described as a type of washing, that has some benefits and it is described that after Jesus's teaching many went to be baptised by John. Repentance is not a requirement for this type of baptism as is indicated in the Acts church in the biblical account of baptism.

In chapter 59 of the first book of the Great Gospel of John, it is described how Jesus corrects a God-fearing man, by telling him it is not right for him to have fear of God as the only thing God wants is love. In chapter 58 of the second book of the Great Gospel of John verse 3, the angel explains that one should speak to God as if He was one's equal. None of the benefits of fear of God as mentioned in scriptures are mentioned in the 'Great Gospel'.

In chapter 63 of the first book of the Great Gospel of John, it is described how Jesus gave his followers heavenly wine which helped them to love more. It was a special kind of wine, which only increased the amount of love of those who already had love, but which could not produce love where there was none to start with. Christian communion which are mentioned 43 times in the New Testament Communion_(Christian) are replaced by this special type of wine in the 'Great Gosel' of John.

In chapter 70 of the first book of the Great Gospel of John, it is preached that judgement can never be out of love, and how where there is no love there can be no truth either. The reader is assured that as long as he holds on to love, he will find truth everywhere. Opponent of neo-evangelism, Dr. John C. Whitcomb, Jr, points out that there is no teaching whatsoever in the New Testament suggesting that love is more important than doctrine or Truth, in his article "when love divorces doctrine and unity rejects truth".

In chapter 26 of the second book of the Great Gospel of John, it is elaborated how the law of Moses is to be kept. There is no differentiation made in Lorber's writings between an Old Covenant and a New Covenant.

In chapter 77 verse 5 of the second book of the Great Gospel of John, the appropriate measures of love are explained. Six measures to self. Sixty to ones neighbour and six hundred to God. Joel Mawhorter however points out in his article "love your neighbour as you love yourself" that the commandment of Jesus in Mat 22:39 could be interpreted to say that I must love my neighbor neither more nor less than I love myself. []

In the Great Gospel of John it is also explained how sex between a husband and wife is bad for their spiritual development and how it should be restricted only to when an offspring is planned. In chapter 242 of the first book of the Great Gospel of John, it is preached that certain food should be avoided to the benefit of the spiritual development of the soul. Such foods includes green fruits, potatoes and coffee. Nathan E. Quinn disagrees with this in his expository of 1Tim4, and says that no person should feel that just because they are a Christian means they cannot enjoy things in life.

Can we please discuss an optimal solution? (Torchrunner (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC))
 * What, precisely do you mean by an optimal solution, in one paragraph or less please.Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I suggest in the section on Lorber, Theology, we refer to the theology section in The Great Gospel of John and don't add a seperate section here. Especially not a completely different type one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Visionary writings
The section about visionary writings I am not comfortable with. Here is a list of the books of Lorber which I am aware of A list of manuscripts written by Lorber includes:


 * The Great Gospel of John, Volume 1-10
 * The childhood of Jesus
 * Sunset into Sunrises
 * The Household of God Volume 1
 * The Household of God Volume 2
 * The Household of God Volume 3
 * Earth & Moon
 * Saturn
 * Gifts out of heaven
 * Bible texts and their hidden meanings
 * The letter of Paul to the church of Laodicea
 * Three days in the temple
 * The Spiritual Sun Volume 1
 * The Spiritual Sun Volume 2
 * The youth of Jesus
 * Secrets of nature
 * Healing through sunlight
 * From hell to heaven Volume 1
 * From hell to heaven Volume 2

I translated them from another language from link http://www.nuweopenbaring.co.za/lorber.php?action=show&id=72&page=65&highlight=swedenborg. I also referred to http://www.jakoblorber.co.nz/

I think it would be more structured if we do an overview of these books, rather than the way it is currently, where just a few things in some of the books are picked on and discussed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 11:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you are mistaken. I would suggest you review WP:PILLARS as I suspect you may not entirely understand what Wikipedia is.Simonm223 (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of the books have within themselves summary conclusions at the end of the book, written by this so called Jesus. When we take from the summary of the book itself what the book is about, then surely there should not be a problem. I have tried this with earth and moon. I had to translate from another language. Let me know your thoughts...? The current account of visionary, cherry picking thoughts from some books and combining it together to say something about his visionary work I consider less neutral by far than what I am attempting here. (Torchrunner (talk) 12:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Your self-completed translations would constitute WP:OR violations again. This has become a WP:DISRUPT issue.Simonm223 (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

well, we could translate original passages, within reason. A list of works by Lorber would certainly be a good addition to the article. The problem is that Torchrunner has NO REFERENCE for what he is trying to do here. Torchrunner, you would spend your time spent in these pointless debates more profitably by going to a library and trying to find one book about Lorber. Once you have that, come back and we can talk about it. --dab (𒁳) 14:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just found a link that makes the e-books available in english.http://www.jakoblorberbooks.com/e-books/Earth-and-Moon/ See last chapters for concluding remarks. I seem however to have a problem opening these files on my PC, but that's a local problem.

This is what I wrote about Earth and Moon last time

Earth and Moon
Earth and Moon in chapter 94, the conclusion of the book describes how the earth should be seen not as a material place but as a spiritual place. The earth is described as a "mother" body where souls need to become ripe in order to be birthed out of her. According to Lorber people are "saved" from their captivity in the material world through numerous reincarnation lives and the role of the earth in ripening souls are emphasised in this book. Reincarnation is essentially an ancient Hinduism belief, and does not correspond with the beliefs of orthodox christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming it is an element of Hinduism constitutes WP:SYNTH. Claiming it is not an element of orthodox Christianity without a reliable source also constitutes WP:SYNTH.Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Source: Martin, Walter Ralston, 1928-1989
 * The kingdom of the cults/ by Walter Martin; Ravi Zacharias, general edition; Jill Martin Rishe and Kevin Rische, managing editors. - Rev. And updated ed.

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.
 * ISBN 0-7642-2821-8

Quote from source page 391: "Fundamental to Hindu thought is the idea that all souls are eternal and accountable for their own actions throughout time. Karma refers to the debt of one's bad actions, which must be atoned for (through various Hindu systems) in order for one to escape the wheel of samsara, or reincarnation (the soul inhabits successive human bodies), or transmigration (the soul inhabits successive bodies - human, animal, or even plants or inanimated objects)" Salvation. The three three major paths to Hindu "salvation" include karma marga (method), the way of disinterested action; bhakti marga, the way to devotion; and jnana marga, the path to knowledge and mystical insight." on page 403 the author concludes "Hinduism, for all of its diversity and contradictions, is not compatible with Christianity. In all its forms, Hinduism denies the biblical Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the doctrines of the Atonement, sin, and salvation by grace through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. It replaces resurrection with reincarnation, and both grace and faith with human works. One cannot, then, achieve peace with God through Hinsuism or any of its sects. C.S. Lewis wisely observed that at the end of all religious quests one must choose between Hinduism and Christianity; the former absorbs all others and the latter excludes them. Peace with God is not achieved by looking inside oneself but by looking up to Him of whom Moses and the prophets did write - Jesus of Nasareth, the Christ and Son of God" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 19:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand unless you have a reliable source stating that Lorber was influenced by Hinduism. Have you read WP:SYNTH?


 * Torchrunner, I'm going to use this an example of WP:SYNTH and break it down. You have source A that says Lorber preaches reincarnation and certain other beliefs in his form of Christianity. You have source B that says Hinduism beliefs are incompatiable with Christianity. You are therefore implying that 1) that Lorber's beliefs are Hinduism beliefs (or at least influenced by Hinduism beliefs), and 2) Lorber's beliefs are incompatiable with Christianity. Yet you don't have a source that makes either of those two conclusions. Instead, you are asking the reader to draw the conclusion. That violates WP:SYNTH. You have to have a reliable source make those conclusions. Singularity42 (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I Claimed that reincarnation is an element of Hinduism. Then I was asked (see above) to provide a source that reincarnation is an element of Hinduism. So I included the source to prove that reincarnation is an element of Hinduism as asked.

(Torchrunner (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * I understand what you are getting at. If I understand your earliest comments correctly, you were trying to state that 1) reincarnation is primarily a Hindu belief, and 2) is incompatiable with orthodox Christianity. (Personally, I'm not sure I agree with point one, and I don't know enough about Christianity to comment on point two). Unfortunately, your source doesn't state what you need it to state for point one - it says reincarnation is a Hindu belief, but it doesn't say it is not the belief of other religions. Your source does state point two, but I don't know enough about the source or the subject to say whether it is a reliable source. Singularity42 (talk) 20:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I think you still have a WP:SYNTH problem:
 * Sourced point: 1) Lorber preaches reincarnation;
 * Sourced point: 2) Reincarnation is incompatiable with orthodox Christianity;
 * Unsourced implied conclusion: 3) Lorber's preaching is inconsistent with orthodox Chrstianity.
 * Singularity42 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Kingdom of the Cults is a book written as a resource for "evangelical missionary" activity against "cults". As such it is possibly a reliable source for the beliefs of Evangelical Christians but certainly not for the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity nor for (what Torchrunner means) the overall view of Mainstream Christianity. It was written by this guy.  See for yourself.  Not a RS for the topic.Simonm223 (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Torchrunner, what you need is a reliable source (preferably an academic source, or something written by an impartial author) that states something like, "Lorber's belief(s) are [considered] inconsistent with mainstream Christianity". Then you would get around original research problems. (By the way, I'm not saying such a source exists. But you'll need to find one if you want to state what you are trying to state.) Singularity42 (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As the author of the book you are using is an Evangelical author and as it is highly questionable if Evangelicalism is part of Mainstream Christianity it can't be said that he speaks for Mainstream Christianity.Simonm223 (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, Evangelical Christianity can probably be argued to be sort of mainstream in the US. Of course, it would itself be identified as "cultish" almost anywhere else. Be that as it may, I would certainly support a brief summary of criticism of Lorber from the part of US Evangelicalism, provided we can cite such criticism. As in, we need a publication from an Evangelicalist viewpoint that actually mentions Lorber.

Simonm223, when Torchrunner says "orthodox Christianity" he plainly means US Evangelicalism, not Eastern Orthodox Christianity. There are various usages of the term "orthodox" in Christianity, in essence it is just a term saying "we are right and you are wrong", see orthodox (disambiguation): "orthodox" is the term for "us" and "cult" is the term for "them". This terminology can readily be inverted depending on where you stand.

Fwiiw, we don't need cranky US fundamentalists to discuss reincarnation. There are excellent references on the point that mainstream Christianity rejects reincarnation, and inasmuch as Lorber really advocates belief in reincarnation, it should be very easy to find criticism of that point without ever mentioning the peculiar topic of  Christianity in the USA.

This is discussed at Reincarnation. Of course, it needs to be pointed out that this is the mainstream of post-Nicean Christianity. Like any other Christian dogma, things become significantly less clear for early Christian times. The correct term for early Christian belief in reincarnation is metempsychosis, and there is good evidence that Origen may have taught that. Which may be part of the reason why his teaching was hushed up and eventually lost after the 4th century. This doesn't have anything to do with Hinduism, unless you want to believe in dodgy theories that Socrates or Plato was really a Buddhist.

Lorber certainly wouldn't be the first Christian to believe in reincarnation, but he would just as clearly be in opposition to the religious mainstream of his day. But so far we haven't been shown evidence that Lorber does in fact teach reincarnation, so that would really be the first step here. Present the content of Lorber's writing first, and add criticism later. --dab (𒁳) 13:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am fully aware that Torchrunner is not talking about what I, as a complete outsider, would call Orthodox Christianity I was trying to highlight through the use of that statement the error that is being made by assuming that Evangelical Christianity is representative of the views of Mainstream Christianity as a whole.Simonm223 (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment
Do you think we should include a section about the relationship between Swedenborg and Lorber? Thomas Noack, in his article 'Swedenborg and Lorber: The Relationship between two Revelations, 2008' wrote:

"Swedenborg looks from the earth to the immeasurable breadth in the spiritual world. The question that interests him is: Where is man and mankind bound? Lorber, on the other hand, looks more in the opposite direction: Wherefrom does man, mankind, and the whole drama of creation come? Certainly, the wither is not absent in Lorber. However, a characteristic of the work of this scribe is his interests in the material realm of creation."

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/documents/9719797/download (Torchrunner (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC))
 * An essay from some random reverend does not necessarily constitute a reliable source.Simonm223 (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

well, it would depend on where this essay was published. It it was published in print with some sort of respectable publisher, and if itcontains criticism of Lorber, we can certainly mention it under the criticism section for whatever it is worth. The article linked doesn't look half bad, but of course Torchrunner once again just gives us the url he googled, and no publication details. Torchrunner, we get it, you can use google, well done. Now try to parse your google results to see if what you found has been published anywhere quotable. As far as I can see the Noack essay is published on scribd originally, and as such isn't in really any more quotable than a blog post. --dab (𒁳) 13:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Summary
I thought I would create a summary section, since there are a lot of comments all over the place, and it would be helpful to editors just joining the discussion have an idea of what's happening. Please feel free to correct or add as necessary. (By the way, most of this is obvious Wikipedia policy, but at this point I thought it makes sense repeating it a bit here.)


 * Information cannot be added to the article that does not have a reliable source. Reliable sources that review Lorber and his work do not include just straight references to Bible quotes. It can include some statements from the Evangelical Chruch of Germany. It generally does not include comments by random reverands.


 * While some editors feel strongly about Lorber and his work (including either wanting to make sure the public knows about it so they can see how great it is, or wanting to make sure the public knows about it so they avoid going to hell), that is not what Wikipedia is. When you start down that road, you end up preaching the work or criticizing the work using orignal research, which is not allowed.


 * Wikipedia is not a place for editors to publish their views about Lorber and his work. See WP:NOT.


 * Puting up two properly references sources, and then asking readers (directly or indirectly) to compare the sources to reach a conclusion is against Wikipedia policy. Conclusions can only be posted (including implied conclusions) if there is reliable source that has drawn the conclusion. It does not matter how obvious the conclusion is to the editor.

Singularity42 (talk) 17:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Doctrine
See  EXPOSING THE ROLE OF CHRISTIAN MYSTICS AND NEO-REVELATIONISTS SUCH AS JAKOB LORBER, EMANUEL SWEDENBORG AND LEOPOLD ENGEL, IN THE PLAN OF THE ILLUMINATI TO BRING ABOUT A NEW BIBLE AND NEW WORLD ORDER http://www.foundationsofchristianity.co.za  (Torchrunner (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC))

you have been told repeatedly to stop presenting urls as "references". Identify your reference properly or stop spamming this talkpage. --dab (𒁳) 07:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Illuminati
In keeping with WP:FRINGE and WP:SYNTH I have yet again removed unsourced claims that attempt to imply Lorber's involvement with this fictitious conspiracy.Simonm223 (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

More about Lorber's associates
1.A source to prove Swedenborg's connection with Jakob Boehme, who was an openly admitted occultist, writing books about magic, involved with Terra cards and also drawing Kaballah diagrams.. The Swedenborg Scientific association http://www.thenewphilosophyonline.org/journal/document.php?page=1013&issue=103 I quote :"Again it is primarily Jakob Boehme with whom Swedenborg is linked."

2. A source to prove how Lorber's Jesus esteemed Swedenborg are from the Lorber books themselves: In his book, From hell to heaven: Book 2, chapter 104 verse 4, the "Jesus" that spoke through Lorber explains how wise Swedenborg were and how it was this same Jesus who revealed the Word unto Swedenborg.

3. Swedenborg was involved in Freemasonry and the Rite of Swedenborg was named after him. (See article about Reus)

4. Engel took Lorber's work further, he was a follower of Lorber and he was reviver of the Illuminati (See Leopold Engel. Engel was a prominent member of an occult association. (See article Reuss)

5. If Engel was an occultist that took Lorber's work further. And Swedenborg was involved with the occult that preceded Lorber's work, and which was praised by Lorber's Jesus. And if Swedenborg was greatly influenced by Boehme, who was openly involved in the occult. And if they all preached in essence the same kind of message, sidestepping the cross of Jesus Christ and His blood flown as atonement for sin, -they all introduced a different gospel, not of grace. And if a source have already noted this. http://www.foundationsofchristianity.co.za/

Then would it be that unreasonable to mention in the article that opponents have associated Lorber with the occult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torchrunner (talk • contribs) 22:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Dead link for the first. And as for the second, it has been explained to you repeatedly that foundationsofchristianity.co.za is not a RS for issues of Swedenborg or his associates.Simonm223 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Terra Cards? Do you mean Tarot Cards?  Kabbalah Diagrams?  What?  The Tree of Life?  Because there really aren't any other major diagrams in kabbalistic practice beyond that one.  It's more of a textual tradition. Do you know what these things are?  Because it might be good to understand the subject before attempting to make edits regarding them.Simonm223 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

can you stop obsessing about occultism and Swedenborg for five minutes and discuss Lorber instead? This is Lorber's article, stop spamming it with irrelevant tangents on Swedenborg, Tarot, Evangelical Christianity, Freemasonry, and similarly irrelevant items. --dab (𒁳) 07:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I get the impression wikipedia is not that neutral after all and that administrators are using their tools to include only views that correlates with their views.

There are 3 main views on Lorber ( with manor variations) 1. That he had a brilliant imagination or that he was a bit nutty, and that he made up all the stuff that he wrote. That it was not supernatural at all. 2. That it was supernatural, and it was from the Kingdom of Light. And it was the true Jesus speaking through Lorber. 3. That it was supernatural, but that it was from occult channeling, and not from the biblical Jesus.

To consider perception 1 as more neutral than the other 2 and to use this position to prevent any contrary views is discriminating.

When I look at Wikipedia "Freemasonry", I see that those associating Freemasonry as occult are considered some weirdo conspiracy people. And it seems all articles proving Freemasonry's involvement with the occult, are blocked from being used as Wikipedia references.

In the mysticism site, the involvement with Freemasonry are discussed, but also its involvement with the occult is denied.

Mysticism has everything to do with "Enlightenment" from where the word "Illuminati". And Lorber's work has everything to do with mysticism, and it's end goal. (Torchrunner (talk) 12:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Although it may appear that way to you the truth is that the people who think Freemasonry is some sort of byzantine occult conspiracy are subscribing to a fringe belief and Wikipedia has specific policies for addressing those.Simonm223 (talk) 13:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * your three possibilities presuppose a Christian "us vs. them" worldview. For everyone else they are just a false dichotomy (trichotomy). From a neutral religious studies viewpoint (the viewpoint Wikipedia will take), Lorber is just another mystic or visionary. There is no fundamental difference between the visions of Ezechiel, the vision of Paul after falling off his horse, the visions of Hildegard of Bingen, or the angels dictating the Qur'an or the Book of Mormon to a 7th century Arab / a 19th century Armerican. Such visions are simply part of the human spiritual experience, people were having them since the Paleolithic, and people will keep having them as long as the species survives. There is really nothing extraordinary about it, other than in the sense that there is "nothing more unnatural than the commonplace". --dab (𒁳) 14:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was struggling to find a civil way to express precisely that sentiment.Simonm223 (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Mysticism vs Christianity
If I take an extract from Wikipedia from the word atonement it reads

....Churches and denominations may vary in which metaphor they consider most accurately fits into their theological perspective, however all Christians emphasize that Jesus is the Saviour of the world and through his death the sins of mankind have been forgiven.


 * Yet, Lorber doesn't see Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, neither that His blood brings atonement for any sin.

Lorber's teachings are the same as that of mysticism, but has nothing to do with Christianity. Based on Wikipedia's own description about what all Christians believe.

Mysticism and Christianity can not be reconciled in any way.

See extract about mysticism:
 * The ancient name for Babylonian Mysticism (or finding ways to get in touch with "The One", "The All", or Satan) was called "Illuminism". The Babylonians who were initiated into the Mystery Religion were said to be in posession of Illumination or THE INNER LIGHT. Supposedly, this meant they had been ENLIGHTENED or aware of the fact that they were gods. (See Encyclopedia Brittanica, Vol. 14, 1910, pg. 320)
 * (See also http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org/rc_intro.htm)

This is my problem. You can't reconcile Illuminism with Christianity. The one is to eat from the tree of life which is Jesus Christ, whereas the other is to eat from the tree of higher knowledge, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When Christianity is seperated from it's central teaching, which is atonement, it is not Christianity anymore and has nothing to do with it anymore.

(Torchrunner (talk) 15:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

It is a rather tall claim that Christian mysticism has nothing to do with Christianity. In reality, mysticism is a central and very important aspect of Christianity. Torchrunner, Christianity isn't just about "Jesus, me and my salvation", it is a religion that has grown and evolved over 2000 years, formed Western culture and has in turn been transformed by it. Nothing is as simple as it seems, certainly not in the field of human spirituality, and there is no way you can even begin to understand Christianity if you haven't studied the milieu of its generation, that is the Hellenistic religions of Late Antiquity and the interplay of the formation of orthodox Christianity and the decline of Hellenistic paganism. The historical Jesus had been gone for three centuries at that point, and has very, very little to do with the processes involved. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I may not be as academic as you, but I know that Christianity has everything to do with a living relationship with Almighty God. And I know He is Holy and only by the blood of Jesus we can have intimacy with Him.

I am not saying that occult experiences are not possible as well. But there is only one way to the Father and that is through Jesus. And as mystics don't acknowledge the blood of Jesus, but want to cleanse themselves through endless life cycles and inward disciplines, I know they can have no relationship with the Father and their teachings are not from Him. (Torchrunner (talk))

this may be so, but Wikipedia is the wrong venue for that. We are an encyclopedia and not a forum for exchanging spiritual or religious sentiment. There are plenty of those on the internet, so there is no need to do this here. I think that what you "know" about mystics may be mistaken, simply because you have not understood mysticism, but this isn't the place to discuss this. If you have a quotable source saying "mystics don't acknowledge the blood of Jesus", we can use it. As long as this is just your opinion, it is irrelevnt for Wikipedia.--dab (𒁳) 18:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * will you allow quotes from here? http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/mysticism/henri-nouwen-mystics-exposed-in-new-book?

(93.186.20.156 (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC))


 * It does not look like a WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What about any of the articles on here? http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/warnings.htm (41.240.247.227 (talk) 13:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Is it another evangelical missionary page? Because it's already been established that evangelical missionary websites are not appropriate sources for this article. Simonm223 (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * and it doesn't even mention Lorber. Let us be very clear that any material added to the article needs to be taken from sources that (a) actually mention Lorber (this is rather crucial), and (b) which can in some way be argued to be "quotable", i.e.  must be published by an identifiable organization, author or publisher. The crossroad.to site appears to be "by Andy and Berit", two random born-again evangelicals who just happen to have a homepage.
 * the dislike of mysticism in US evangelicalism may be worth mentioning on the Christian mysticism page, but as "Andy and Berit" themselves point out, mystical aspects are very common in the Christian mainstream, and it is in fact evangelical anti-mysticism that would qualify as a "sect" with respect to the bulk of Christian tradition. --dab (𒁳) 07:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Visionary?
I'm not sure if using the term "Visionary" with no citations is encyclopedic. I think the best thing to do would be to simply remove the term, but I imagine there must be many supporters of Lorber who have used it. Granted whether that counts as him actually being one or not is certainly still debatable. Colincbn (talk) 02:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

the broken internet links
I just deleted two broken internet links --Avoye (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jakob Lorber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222051335/http://j-lorber.com/English/Text/GEJ1.html to http://www.j-lorber.com/English/Text/GEJ1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jakob Lorber. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090527013318/http://www.merkurpublishing.com/jakob_lorber_main_book_page.htm to http://www.merkurpublishing.com/jakob_lorber_main_book_page.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221155049/http://www.merkurpublishing.com/letter_of_saint_paul_to_the_laodiceans.htm to http://www.merkurpublishing.com/letter_of_saint_paul_to_the_laodiceans.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221155049/http://www.merkurpublishing.com/letter_of_saint_paul_to_the_laodiceans.htm to http://www.merkurpublishing.com/letter_of_saint_paul_to_the_laodiceans.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

subheadings strange
it says Austrian musician. Should be Slovenian mystic. Or channeler? Jiuk (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Index
There was a sentence written as follows:

However, the First Vatican Council of 1869/1870 placed Lorber's writings on the Index of Forbidden Books.

However, this was never cited. After further research, it seems as though Lorber’s works have never been placed in the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

The sentence will be removed as a result under WP:BOLD. Lilfruini (talk) 02:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)