Talk:Mother goddess/Archive 1

Archive 1

Moved from article

' This form of Hinduisam, known as Shaktism, is strongly associated with Vedanta and Samkhya Hindu philosophy and is considered to be monist, contrary to less-developed polytheist cultures of old. Feminine energy (Shakti) is considered to be the motive force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos in Hinduism, and thus, as the immanent Mother, Devi is focused on with love and intensity. '

This is at least partially innaccurate, and is extremely POV. I don't know of anything substantiating any of it despite being rather knowledgable about hinduism, but am willing to hear some explanation and verification if that is possible. Sam [Spade] 00:38, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would ask what you find 1) inaccurate and 2) POV about this. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:09, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

aside from the "less-developed" and "polytheist" ... that seems off  : ) Actually, having looked over it, I would amend it to this:

This form of Hinduism, known as Shaktism, is strongly associated with Vedanta, Samkhya and Tantra Hindu philosophies and is ultimately monist, though there is a rich tradition of 'devotional love' (Bhakti yoga) associated with it. The keystone text is the Devi Mahatmya which combines earlier Vedic theologies, emergent Upanishadic philosophies and developing tantric cultures in a laudatory exegesis of Shakti religion. Feminine energy (Shakti) is considered to be the motive force behind all action and existence in the phenomenal cosmos in Hinduism. Essentially, all masculine potentiality is actualized by feminine dynamism, embodied in multitudinous goddesses who are ultimately reconciled in one. Demons of ego, ignorance and desire bind the soul in maya (illusion) (also alternately ethereal or embodied) and it is Mother Maya, shakti, herself, who can free the bonded individual. The immanent Mother, Devi, is for this reason focused on with intensity, love, and self-dissolving concentration in an effort to focus the shakta (as a Shakti worshipper is sometimes known) on the true reality underlying time, space and causation, thus freeing one from karmic cyclism.

--LordSuryaofShropshire 18:20, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

I merged your version w my version in the article, and placed a very similar version on shaktism. Hope you like what I did, let me know. Sam [Spade] 19:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neolithic?

"Her cult was already established in Neolithic times, as surviving archaeological remains attest." —this is contested, isn't it?—Ashley Y 23:58, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)

Not really. What is contested is the idea of matriarchy, and of a monotheist mother goddess. I'll go so far as to say those ideas are bunk ;) The concept of a mother goddess, revered on matters of fertility and childbithing (as well as many others) is uncontested however to my knowledge. In short, this could prob be written better, focused on what is unanimously agreed to. Sam [Spade] 04:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The older levels of myths do retain plenty of signs of a former matrilineality structure, however, which should be distinguished from political matriarchal rule, naturally. --Wetman 03:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In your opinion there are plenty of signs, in the opinion of many modern scholars that's simply not true. DreamGuy 04:59, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Could one of these writers please provide an actual citation regarding the "monotheist" mother goddess? Are not monotheisms all male, excluding goddesses? Where is the monotheist goddess religion to which this writer refers, and what authors support such an theory? Or is this a construct of the author "Sam Spade"? Patricia Monaghan

Recent edits

Good recent edits, DreamGuy. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 00:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too bad the following has been eliminated in favor of waffle: The Olympian goddesses of classical Greece eclipsed the Mother Goddess without ever really supplanting her. Her roles were divided among Hera, Demeter and Athena... The Triple Goddess devolved into Olympian Persephone - Demeter - Hecate, the Maiden (Kore), Mother and Crone.

The current text avoids any connections: The Olympian goddesses of classical Greece had many characters with Mother Goddess attributes, including Hera, Demeter and Athena. This is not progress. --Wetman 04:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The resulting text could be better, but it's a huge progress from what it replaced. The sentences claiming that there was some earlier "Mother Goddess" figure that had more "roles" than Hera, Demeter and Athena and that there was some original "Triple Goddess" that was so important that it "devolved" into the others are simply taking as assumed that the beliefs of modern Neopagans are 100% true, which has not been established as fact either in this article or in the field in general. The Triple Goddess concept, as the tone of the sentence had it, is a creation of the last century and a half that had no real existence in the original myths. DreamGuy 04:59, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Neopagans! Obviously not Kerenyi. How can I get up to speed with the new orthodoxy? --Wetman 05:24, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can get up to speed on modern scholarship by reading books in the field. If you want orthodoxy I suggest you stick with what you already believe.

By the way, your changes to supposedly create a gentler neutrality consisted almost entirely of removing all the changes I made, the same ones Spade cited above as being good edits, to restore the original highly biased text. That's not good editing, Wetman. You knew that two editors agreed with the changes, which took me a while to make, and then you just ignored both of us and moved almost everything back to the exact same state it was before. I suggest that you not do that in the future. DreamGuy 18:34, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Such threats are tasteless. I repeat: what is the Greek mythology text we are to be following here at Wikipedia? Can you offer a "book in the field" acceptable to you? My edit was not a revert (a tactic that has been rendered odious) but a fastidious reworking using as much of your contribution as possible. I have also added External links at several related sites that tend to support your fashionable "anti-"Goddess" stance. It's time for you to read them: they make many points acceptable to you.

But can you give us your idea of an acceptable modern overview of Greek mythology? --Wetman 21:20, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What threat? There was no threat, and implying that there was one is what is tasteless. I suggested that you follow the Wikipedia policies, that's all, I'm sorry if such an idea is so distasteful to you. Your changes were a revert except for all but minor changes. If taking out 95% of what I did is what you call "as much as your contribution as possible" then you obviously have a pretty skewed idea of what's reasonable. As far as a books go, other than those by Graves and the discredited matriarchy theorists that followed, I know of no Greek mythology books that give the information that you keep wanting to put in there. Perhaps you should be the one to come up with some reputable scholar who claims what you keep insisting should be in there. I read those links you added here and there, but they don't make up for the fact that many of the things you want to be in this article simply are not accepted by modern scholars, let alone so accepted that the other side shouldn;t even be mentioned at all on those points. DreamGuy 01:24, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Text suppressed by DreamGuy

The cult of a fertile female goddess was already established in Neolithic times, as surviving archaeological remains attest. From the discovery in 1908 of the "Venus of Willendorf" in Austria, a range of small extravagantly fat female icons, collectively referred to as Venus figurines have been found across a wide landscape. I ask the reader, what is the point of DreamGuy's suppressing this text? What about this text could offend any educated reader, genuinely interested in the topic? --Wetman 21:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you both have a point. The important thing is to make it clear that there is no good evidence of either a monotheistic mother goddess (the same people who made those fat lady statues made art depicting a man w antlers, assumably a hunting god) nor of any general state of historical matriarchy. Thats all feminist/neopagan bunk, w little or no sound evidence to back it up. However, the above is just fine, so long as its in context, and not being used to justify the aforementioned bunk.

I would be just fine w the article expressing that some people believe there once was a monotheistic mother goddess, and that prehistoric people lived in a state of matriarchy, but we need to make it clear this theory is not well supported by evidence (any evidence would be welcome of course).

as far as the "all female pagan deities were simply aspects of one primary mother goddess", I think thats alot of hooey as well, but that is a wider believed theory, especially since the ancients tended to view dieties from other cultures as differently named versions of their own.

I am especially impressed to see a mention of Mary, and the mormon "heavenly mother", thats the sort of thing we can use more of, taking a broad, general view of things is one of ourduties here. Keep up the good work, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"The cult of a fertile female goddess was already established in Neolithic times, as surviving archaeological remains attest." This is not proven. Heck, I don't even think that can be proven, what with no written documentation from that time and all. Those figurines in no way prove that fertile female goddesses were established, as you would know if you actually read the articles in wikipedia about them and pages you recently added links to. Some people assume those are goddess figurines, but we don't know that for a fact. You can't just claim that any depiction of a female figure is intended to represent a goddess. In fact, the article later states that, so having one section saying "yes, these were definitely goddesses" followed by "we don't know that they were goddesses" makes no sense.

The following text that Wetman cites is still in the article, but reworded. I noticed that Sam added the text back in, which means we have two paragraphs that are highly redundant. So I'm going to go back in and fix that.

Now, if Wetman would like to PROVE that those figures were goddesses somehow (time machine, perhaps) he can give his proof and then it should stand as he wants it. Otherwise I'm putting back my NPOV statement about how some people believe they are goddesses. DreamGuy 01:39, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

The figurines are generally accepted to have been goddess icons, just as the horned man paintings and figurines are widely accepted to be god icons. Can you cite somebody who thinks otherwise, because everything I've ever heard (and I've heard alot on this subject) makes it clear that these, along w burial, are taken as proof of early religion. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 12:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The figurines are not generally accepted to be goddesses except by Neopagans, supporters of the matriarchy theories, and people who are extremely sloppy in their conclusions (the whole "what else could they be" argument is the most popular one, which shows poor judgment). I would agree that several decades back they were probably generally accepted,mainly out of there not being a lot of people speaking up against the sloppy conclusions, but these days it's recognized as just a theory as more people have had a chance to examine the evidence. Even if they were generally accepted by scholars at large, which they aren't, on such an unprovable and speculative topic proper NPOV would be to point out the main proponents and not just accept it as true and write that it's been established when it hasn't, which is what earlier versions of this article were doing. As far as who says they aren't, the articles in question already have a number of sources of scholars arguing against the idea, although I can certainly list off more if you would really like. And, for the record here, I am not saying that they definitely weren't goddesses, as don't know that any more than the people who think they know they are goddesses, I am simply pointing out that it is a theory that is not held by all experts (and I would argue that the main proponents are arguing from a pretty severe feminist bias), so only listing one side (or listing both but presenting one as fact) is a clear violation of NPOV policies.

And don't even get me started on the Horned Man... DreamGuy 15:00, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Request for information

I have created a page women as theological figures (title may change): would anyone more knowledgeable about Mother Goddess and related subjects care to add to it?

Jackiespeel 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Missing Link: Mother Goddess in Dravidian Indus Culture

I'm just throwing this out there for inclusion/exploration. I think and important link between the neolithic discussion and the vedic and post-vedic definitions of the mother goddesss in 'hindu' culture, is the presense and roll of the mother goddess in the Indus Valley Civilization (~2500 BCE). There are seals and figuerines from Mohenjodaro and Harrappa that show a Mother Goddess deity, so it's worth inquiry in the context of this discussion if someone is interested in doing that. On that note, I shall bow out...!

Arff 03:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction needs more defining and less ranting/controversy. It is difficult on a reader to start an article without a firm definition, and the current one seems like the intro to an essay on why the archetypal theory is wrong. Not saying that fact is right or wrong, just saying the intro needs some improvement and such improvement could greatly improve the article. --DanielCD 03:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Merges

It seems to me that there since there are so many mother goddess figures throughout the world, it would be best to either put them all on one page or at the very least, create a unifying page that links to them all and discusses some issues relevant to them all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.45.52 (talk • contribs)

I quite agree. I'm going to poke at it, but the mythologies can get quite complex. I encourage anyone interested to consider assisiting to merge this material or come up with ideas on how we might better present it. --DanielCD 18:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was linked here via working on translation of Samothrace temple complex. Agree -BUT there are between the various & sundry Goddess pages some incongruities & disconnects - the job will be a big one with many potentials for controversy - perhaps a draft page/sandbox somewhere? Bridesmill 22:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to see a WikiProject to manage all these articles, but I think putting them all in a single article is a mistake. There's plenty of information at least for a lot of the subjects, to justify having their own article. Unfortunately, I really just don't have the time (read "patience") to organize a project, but I'd certainly support it's creation. B.Mearns^*, KSC 13:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this material can be painstaking to research. I think a good organization would help, but I am also unsure as to how to do it as yet. --DanielCD 17:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On the merge: I think it's a bad idea. This article is of good length and quality and should stay separate. However, having a short summary of this article in Mother Goddess or some similar page, with a link to the main article, would be a good idea. Tenebrous 06:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, didn't look at the page title. I got here from the merge tag at Cybele; perhaps I'll go post this note on that talk page as well... Tenebrous 07:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a merge from Heavenly Mother which has attempted to grow into it's own article, but I don't see much there other than specifics on the LDS view which is covered consisely here. Bytebear 21:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm new to this I hope that I have done this correctly. David Teague here,the writer-Artist. I have been a student of these Far Eastern Faiths for many years as well as others. I have recently spent some time as a "guru",some people including several Self Realization Fellowship monks believe that I am their former "guru" Sri Yukteswar incarnate. I have a few devotees in California. I have met the spirit of Divine Mother and she has reminded me the Kali and many other goddesses are the ones that have accepted Murder of Human beings as the ideal sacrifice. These Spirits can be very dangerous, I hope that you will add some of the information on the deadly-ness of Human sacrifice to these "demi-gods" and their relationship to the safety of the world,infact that is why the Jewish Faith, Buddhism,Christianity and the Hindu reform called Self Realization Fellowship exist in the world today,even though they are in the process of reforming.Thanks for reading and helping with this problem,I will have a Religious website up in a few months.May 21, 2007 7:49

Rape wands

I can find no google hits for "raping wand" or "rape wand"; this smells very much like very edgy pseudoscience, and not historical evidence other than one or two "suggestions" by non-mainstream folks that this "might have been"; can sonmeone provide real credible archeological/historical/anthropological evidence of this, as it totally seems to be away from what thsi article is about in the first place? Either that, or can we just delete it - provided by anon editor as rework and very significant change of previous sentence, request for citation resulted in a broken 404 link (checked same day 'cite' was provided).Bridesmill 19:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Blessed Virgin Mary?

Why is she on here? She is NOT a goddess. So could someone tell me why she is listed as such?

It's a common speculation nowadays that veneration of the Theotokos is an expression of some remnant or impulse toward goddess worship in Christianity, and that she is therefore "really" this goddess. One can in fact find sources that say this, so we can't avoid a mention here. Trouble is, few Christian scholars take it seriously enough to bother refuting it so finding sources on the other side of the question isn't easy. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The only real speculation that exists is among non-Catholics. Now, I believe it should be talked about but none if any Catholics takes those sort of debates seriously because Catholics know that she is not a goddess. That sort of speculation was started by those outside the Church to attempt to discredit the Church by accusing it of paganism.

So including the Blessed Virgin on the list of goddesses sort of alarmed me because it seems that the article is saying that she is a goddess when she definitely is not. So maybe she should be removed from that list so it doesn't confuse people?

I think the discussion of it in the article itself is fine, though. It's her inclusion on the "figures" list that worries me the most.

As a Roman christian, I would say that her inclusion here is valid. The veneration of Mary is the manifestation of the sacred feminine/divine mother in Christianity. -- Johnny Wishbone (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The title Mother of God is only appropriate if it refers to the divinity of Jesus-Christ. If anyone does not believe that Jesus-Christ is the Lord, he is bound to confuse the true meaning of the title. 69.157.241.150 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The Blessed Virgin Mary is not a goddess. The Blessed Virgin Mary is a Saint--the most important of all Saints--but, a Saint none the less. To call Mary a goddess is exactly like calling Muhammad a god, or Abraham a god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.63.5 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Eroding article

This article continues to erode, with "illuminati" and conspiracy theories intruded into the opening and a contemporary copyright watercolor image that epitomizes the vaporings that make this subject disreputable. Can someone restore some of the deleted sense and pull this together in encyclopedic fashion? I have to remove it from my watchlist. --Wetman 04:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Children's Toys? Who?

To me it seems the worst explanation ever, historizing childplay into prob. the oldest remains of human creative endeavour. Who dares to claim this nonsense? Anyone who has actually seen the statues will certainly have noticed the protruding breasts and vaginas, abnormally large for a woman in any age. I noticed claims about the carvings being made by women looking at themselves Venus_of_Willendorf, but this seems equally absurd as women could easily have modelled each other... Note that on this page children's toys are not mentioned. Anyway, the point is that making this dubious claim here, in a page about the Mother goddess seems totally out of place and therefore misleading. —The preceding unsigned

comment was added by 85.144.154.212 (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The Holy Spirit

The entry under Christianity for Holy Spirit is misleading at best. Spirit in the original Greek of the new testament is neuter, not feminine, and when referred to by a pronoun, takes a masculine pronoun (contra Greek grammar). In the Old Testament it can be both feminine and masculine, more often is feminine. Furthermore, within the Bible, the Holy Spirit takes no more feminine character traits than does Jesus (Son) or God (Father). I am not aware of any Christian scholars who take the Spirit to be feminine in any meaningful sense. 88.108.199.202 20:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Rev. Dr. Jason Ward

I have clarified the paragraph, with a citation. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Heavenly Mother merge

I would be in favor of merging the article on Heavenly Mother with this one. I would be interested in hearing any contrary views and the justification for keeping the articles separate. SESmith 04:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this yet, but the only problem I can see is that the Heavenly mother article is pretty big, maybe just a summary and a link to the Heavenly mother article would be best.

I guess I'm just wondering how much of a merger you want. It definitely is connected to this article. The division I currently see is this article seems to summarize non-Christian godesses while HM denotes Christian ones, although this division is not complete in either article, there is overlap in each one. Something clearly needs to be fixed here. Do we want to combine Christian and non-Christian, and if so, to what extent? Some religions may have problems seeing certain figures portrayed as "goddesses." see above for example or click here: [1]

Another issue to consider is that the term "Heavenly Mother" is a common term in LDS circles. moving the article to this page may create confusion. "Sacred feminine" is also a popular term due to the da Vinci Code book, how have other articles dealt with these problems? redirects? Wrad 18:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points. I'm leaning towards keeping the articles at least somewhat separate now, though I'm not sure what would be the best thing to do re: to what extent the articles should be merged. You can count me as undecided on this one. SESmith 10:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I think two distinct articles is a good idea, because the Christian Heavenly Mother, in Christian Gnosticism, Catholicism, Mormonism, feminist Christianity, and otherwise, is usually a bit different than what is typically called a Mother goddess in other religions. In Christianity, the Mother is usually either powerless without the Father, or the Father and Mother are just two aspects of a single dual-gendered god(dess). Moreover, in Catholicism, the Heavenly Mother (Mary) isn't exactly a goddess at all, but something sort of like, but not quite, a minor deity. The term Heavenly Mother seems to be more acceptable in the Christian context. As to Judaism, though, I think Mother goddess best applies, since the ancient Hebrew goddesses such as Asherah, Anat, Astarte, and Ashima are linked to other middle eastern goddesses of the time. So I think that's a good separation between the two articles. Heavenly Mother for Christianity, and Mother goddess for all others. COGDEN 10:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this merger. Heavenly Mother in Christian Theology is much different than Mother Goddess of other religions. --Trödel 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, as per my post above. These articles need to be clear on what they are covering. Wrad 01:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Indo-European Mythology] can this link stay here until I have found the appropriate site?

Greetings, Austerlitz -- 88.72.29.200 (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Understanding

• Hindu Goddess

"Goddesses are an integral part of Hinduism , and the worship of goddesses is a significant aspect of Hindu religion. The number of goddesses in the ancient and the contemporary Hinduism is overwhelming, and each one of the goddess has her own mythology and history, appearance and roles, characters and attributes.

Some scholars believe that all goddesses of the Hindu pantheon are different manifestations of the single super-goddess, and there are Hindu texts, myths and traditions that affirm this theory. Others believe they represent feminine aspects of a greater, unitary divine entity."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.212.84 (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Need to go

the pictures needs to go, the first wo are not confirmed mother godesses —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.142.70.36 (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Father Earth

For the sake of balance we should note that in some cultures the Earth was male, such as Egyptian Geb. It seems the sex/gender of a god/goddess is determined by local climate and geography and was largely irrelevant, as the role of the god remained the same regardless of sex or even in it's absence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.4.23 (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Innana not a mother

Sumerian Innana gave birth to no children. 86.12.4.23 (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC) anto

moved section on Decline here for discussion

Decline

The Iron Age with advanced technology of the chariot revolutionized warfare and brought a series of invasionsfrom the north, mainly by the Aryans who viewed themselves as superior to the indigenous populations they conquered. As the new civilization spread and became the new aristocracy, the conquerors imposed their own system of government and their own theocracy of monotheism.ref name=StoneStone, Merlin (1976). When God Was a Woman. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace & Co. p. 62. ISBN 0-15-696158-X. During this time, there was a transition from a tribal and clan-based society to a sovereign state form of government where de jure and de facto rights of individuals were replaced by sovereignty to the state and territorial integrity, which led to the emergence of the empire. Matriarchy went into decline asgoddess temples were destroyed and sacred prostitution was officially shut down by the emperor Constantine in the fourth century AD when pantheism was replaced with Christianity.refEusebius, Life of Constantine, [2] 3.55and[http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iii.lvii

Stone doesn't use the word theocracy nor does page 22 back what it is referencing. 'Aryans' is not a useful word here, and there was no one 'civilization'. It wasn't this simple. Dougweller (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The word 'Aryan' is being used in its traditional meaning as "all-Indo-Europeans". According to the Kurgan hypothesis, the "Proto-Indo-Europeans" began to spread out and migrate from their home north of the Caspian Sea after they invented the chariot. According to Colin Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis, the Aryans (Proto-Indo-Europeans) actually originated much earlier, in the city of Catal Huyuk, and the inhabitants of that city worshipped the Mother Goddess. Maybe what god is worshipped depends on the level of technology. Maybe the invention of the chariot inspired the transition from a matriarchal religion to the patriarchal Proto-Indo-European religion of the Proto-Indo-Europeans living north of the Caspian Sea. Keraunos (talk) 23:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Page 62 is referenced, not 22. According to the Unification theory [3] around 3150 BC (Bronze Age and Early Iron Age) the development of metal, and especially the chariot as a weapon, revolutionized warfare. See Timeline of ancient history. Indo-Iranians and Akkadians invaded areas of Mesopotamia and Elam around 3000-2200 BC see Battle of Uruk and brought Semitic ideas and theology, which led to political unification and the rise of city states like Nippur, Babylon and Assyria. De jure and de facto rights of individuals were slowly replaced by sovereignty to the state and territorial integrity, which led to the emergence of the empire. During this time, Matrilinear sex-positive societies were replaced by Yahweh, who was not a big fan of Asherah Queen of heaven, but they continued to coexist for almost 4000 years, although not very peacefully. And then finally, Constantine in the fourth century AD officially replaced pantheism with Christianity. It took from 4000 BC to 300 AD to make the transformation, so no it wasn't a simple transition, but for our purposes, a paragraph will suffice. USchick (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure 22 was just a typo. Unification theory? I can't see using this website] as a source or putting forward the claim about matrilinear socities being replaced by Yahweh (which doesn't make sense anyway). Dougweller (talk) 15:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that site as a source, only as a point of reference. The Encyclopedia of Christianity (p.659) claims that Yahweh displaced matrilinear societies [4]. Theological dictionary of the Old Testament says that Yahweh followers inherited property from patrilinear descent, and that cult followers from the same time period received their inheritance from the matrilinear descent. [5] (p.457 toward the bottom). USchick (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the Encylopedia of Christianity is specifically talking about Israel about about gods/goddesses rather than societies. The dictionary is likewise referring specifically to Israel and is talking about the notion of the firstborn, seemingly saying there were two kinds of descent, but not that inheritance followed matrilineal descent - that followed patrilineal descent (at least that's what the dictionary says), it was the cultic aspect of the notion of the firstborn that followed matrilineal descent, not inheritance. Dougweller (talk) 06:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I am suggesting that in this article there should be a paragraph that describes the decline of the Mother Goddess in history from the time of ancient history to the modern age. There were several contributing factors: (with each factor having its own set of references)

• Technological development (that improved warfare)
• Natural disasters (that caused migration)
• Invasion by various tribes
• Development of city states
• Semitic influence of Yahweh (biblical God of Israel in the Old Testament, worshiped by Semitic societies)
• Christianization

USchick (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Keraunos, welcome to the discussion. The technological development of hard metal from 4000 BC onward revolutionized warfare. People with new technology were the invaders, and people who didn't have technology were at a disadvantage. The main developments at the time were the chariot – invented by the Proto-Indo-Europeans, the sarissa – used by Alexander the Great to conquer the largest empire in ancient history), and the sailing ship – created a navy on the Nile River. The invaders killed all captive men and adult women. They kept the young captive girls as their wives. The invaders were Semitic tribes who worshiped the biblical God of Israel. At the end of the day, they were the ones who survived to write down history. The areas they invaded continued their existing customs of worship as long as they were allowed, but all that ended when emperor Constantine enforced Christianity by law. There were other factors, but mainly, that's what happened. Does anyone have any issues with including this information as the reason for the decline of the Mother Goddess? USchick (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If written with reliable sources, avoiding original research and adhering to our NPOV policy it should be fine. Maybe though it should be worked on here. Dougweller (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

USchick, would you be open to the idea that you may have committed some historical errors in the above summary? For example:

• There are no references to YHWH in any extant or reported texts from 4000 years ago.
• You seem to think that "Semites" were all followers of YHWH. In fact, the Hebrews were the only henotheistic/monotheistic YHWH followers in the Semitic group until Christianity and Islam, and the various offshoots thereof. Ancient semites were typically polytheistic and many had mother goddesses.
• Constantine didn't make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. Emperor Theodosius did so around 380 AD. There was also no "pantheism" in Roman religion. Roman religion contained house gods, deified emperors, mystery cults, traditional greco-roman deities (headed by Jove and Zeus, both males), stuff like that.
• The concept of "de-facto individual rights" being replaced by Semitic "empire" does not hold up to scrutiny. Pre-Semitic Sumer was consumed with Lugale king warfare between city states, culturally imperialistic tendencies, etc. As we can see from the Semitic-influenced Law Code of Ur-Nammu, the Semitic Akkadians understood some concept of rights which is actually quite progressive for the time period.
• The notion that "invaders" (who somehow go from Indo-European to Semitic and back again several times) spread death and patriarchy across the Near East is not supported by evidence. Sumerians had bronze, a hard metal, and were neither Semitic nor Indo-European; they were quite violent, even with their mother goddess. Ancient Egyptians weren't Semites. A million things in your above statement just don't add up.

These are some things to consider. NJMauthor (talk) 08:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• keep section and expand:

Hey there! I am not knowledgeable on this subject, still it is pretty evident the significant notability of "Decline…Mother goddess section" once this it is a wide and popular theme, and it historically affected so many cultures or else possibly all those around the world. So, this section must be part of the article. That said, some remarks regarding procedure and content respectively: Although it is sometimes unavoidable for technical reasons (such as lack of accurateness), yet ultimately it is aggressive removing parts of any article. So, once the statements, references, disagreements, doubts were brought up here in the talk page, there is no need anymore of keeping it out of the article (yet some parts remain controversial), and therefore now someone could be nice turning it back (bespeaks good tone of politeness) because it is the civility thing to do (let’s all please always respect the work endeavored by creator/editor). Content: Again, while it is pertinent, there is no need of achieving a consensus about contents, only what matters it is to check (or find new ones) the references. By the way if the monotheistic Hebraic god (YHWH) it is not mentioned or known in those ancient cultures, that doesn’t imply that not existed an influence of a monotheistic belief. Whatever it is the case, just please support such assertions with references in any edition, (are additions or removals, also it is useful here to support the statements with explicit refs).

And finally: I have noticed in that section some display of opinions. It’s ok, nothing wrong with that as long get clear in the text which sources are delivering such conclusions and therefore allowing room for second thought(s) in the section. Obviously that which is not supported by refs should be removed, simple as that. May be I didn’t help much but for now it is all I can say guys (hey, interesting article!); end of the break and now back to work (thanks for invitation). Dream of Nyx (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to see additional interest in this discussion. I don't know very much about it, simply going on what I read, so I'm open to any suggestions. Yes, I was under the understanding that all ancient Semites were followers of YHWH. I imagine the reason YHWH is not something that shows up, is because followers do not utter the name or write it, because it's holy. We know that there was a decline right? Do we all agree on that? What else do we know to be true? USchick (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, YHWH's name being too holy to utter is a later belief. Except for the Hebrews (and even this is debated regarding the earliest period), ancient Semitic peoples were all polytheistic and possessed mother goddesses. NJMauthor (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

From our article: "The term Semite means a member of any of various ancient and modern Semitic-speaking peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including; Akkadians (Assyrians and Babylonians), Eblaites, Ugarites, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews (Israelites, Judeans and Samaritans), Arameans, Chaldeans, Amorites, Moabites, Edomites, Hyksos, Arabs, Nabateans, Maganites, Shebans, Sutu, Maltese, Mandeans and Ethiopian Semites.". Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

How about this theory? [6] I'm not saying use the website as a source, I'm asking if history supports any of it for the decline. USchick (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

USChick: I don't think you'll find any modern historians supporting such a hypothesis. NJMauthor (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please outline an explanation that's acceptable to historians or supported by any other body of knowledge? We know the decline happened. Why did it happen? USchick (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Was an outline ever created? =) --Bema Self (talk) 13:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No. My point is this, for thousands of years in all civilizations, the feminine divine was worshiped. Then in recent history, a male "one god" became popular. Certainly there was a decline or a shift of some sort? On WP we are limited to Verifiability, not Truth WP:VNT. With all the research being done on ancient civilizations, I would think that something is available, but the male historians here don't seem to be interested. USchick (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Christian Mother Goddess

A Christian sect known as Collyridianism worshipped the Virgin Mary as a Goddess.. should this be mentioned? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The information can be found here: [7] --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Source for the idea that matriarchal religions have no goddesses that are not mother goddesses?

The lead now claims that all goddesses in matriarchal religions are mother goddesses. This isn't in the article, has no source, and seems unlikely. Dougweller (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Matriarchal religions are those with a mother goddess, can´t be separated, must be mentioned. Lorynote (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand the English language well enough to see the distinction. What the article says is that all matriarchal religions have no goddesses that aren't mother goddesses, but there is no source for that. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you suggest? That mother goddess´s article shouldn´t mention matriarchal religion? The article doesn´t say that; it says matriarchal religion implies mother goddesses. Lorynote (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it says "A mother goddess is a term used to refer to any goddess associated with matriarchal religion, " which is saying 'All goddesses in a matriarchal religion are mother goddesses'. Dougweller (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

.....and then what happened?

If the idea of a Mother Goddess is so prevalent all over the world, what happened? The article reads like this is still the case today in 2013, but it's not. What happened? How about this? The conqueror is the one who lives to tell the story. During the Greco-Roman rise of civilization, interpretations of Herodotus incorporated other cultures into Greek, Interpretatio graeca. This would happen every time power changed hands. During Christianization and Interpretatio Christiana, Pope Gregory I said The letter from Pope Gregory I to Mellitus copied by Bede says in part:

...that the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed; but let the idols that are in them be destroyed; let water be consecrated and sprinkled in the said temples, let altars be erected, and relics placed there. For if those temples are well built, it is requisite that they be converted from the worship of devils to the service of the true God; that the nation, seeing that their temples are not destroyed, may remove error from their hearts, and knowing and adoring the true God, may the more freely resort to the places to which they have been accustomed.

USchick (talk) 02:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A related question would be, why isn't even a hint that there are any academics who don't support the "mother goddess" hypothesis? If such an idea was not so widespread as this article suggests, the question of "what next?" is moot. I know I have read sources which are skeptical of this idea, but I don't know how quickly I might find them. I'm quite surprised there isn't a "criticism" section on this page.--~TPW 23:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

References

crediting images

Obviously we should credit the sculptor of the Willendorf Venus if we use the image....now what was the name again :-)Pignut (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Critiques and controversy in lead

These were added today, in a single edit], along with the removal of around 16kb of content. I've not examined the diffs in any great detail; but imo detailed representation and scholarly discussion of fringe/extreme views belongs at Great Goddess hypothesis. Haploidavey (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Just had a look at what was removed; it included some well-sourced content, and the sources themselves. Relevant content on the "Mother Goddess hypothesis" should be included, obviously, but in summary form. This is not the place for such exhaustive treatment of arguments for or against Gimbutas, her precursors or her dwindling band of followers. Haploidavey (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

... Why has this inexplicable overhaul of the article been allowed to persist? What sound reason could there be for excising all that well-sourced information? I'm reverting the change until a staff member comes in to correct me. MarqFJA87 (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It was not a well-sourced version, it was a version with many doubtful remarks. The work of Gimbutas, Mellaart and others has been disputed widely, as can be read in my version. Unless you come with reputable recent sources, please do not revert. BoH (talk) 14:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

First of all, there is no "staff member" who is going to correct anyone; this project is largely driven by volunteers. Corrections arise from policy: are the sources considered reliable, and can they be verified? The two of you appear to disagree on that issue, therefore I suggest seeking a [WP:3O|third opinion] on this.--~TPW 14:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Irrelevent introduction

The introduction starting at the 2nd paragraph seems to convey a questionable interpretation of its references and is overly-specific so that if anything this information should belong in its own section. The following statements struck me:

"There is difference of opinion between the academic and the popular conception of the term. The popular view is mainly driven by the Goddess movement and reads that primitive societies initially were matriarchal, worshipping a sovereign, nurturing, motherly earth goddess... Often this is accompanied by a desire for a lost civilization from a bygone era..."

What is described as the "popular view" seems to be a warped interpretation of the references. The reference states "The idea of the Mother Goddess, also called the Great Mother or Great Goddess, has dominated the imaginations of modern scholars in several fields." The reference does not attempt to indicate a popular view for the general population as its conveyed, and it doesn't provide evidence that this view is popular among any contemporary group at all (not mentioning the fact this reference is over a decade old). In fact, the 3rd reference even states this idea was a fringe theory. It seems it was debunked decades ago.

Essentially, I am proposing that the introduction contains largely irrelevant and inaccurate information (possibly motivated by a biased writer) and it should be changed or moved.

Pythagimedes (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The introduction is relevant, because outside of the academic field, most interest comes from the Goddess movement, making unsubstantiated claims. Therefore, the introduction is relevant. BoH (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I forgot all about this discussion, sorry, but anyway...

My point is the article should not be framed as a rebuttal against fringe theories, per WP:FRINGE. That information should be presented in its own section and not immediately after the lead. Pythagimedes (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Heavenly Mother into Mother goddess

Both pages are currently of poor quality, but largely seem to cover the same ground. Daask (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)