Talk:Greco-Roman mysteries/Archive 1

Untitled
I think these are a bit controversial; needs work. --Sam

I would challenge the (no longer practised) list. At least the cult of Mithras is still going, unbroken. And I wouldn't be suprised if there weren't at the very least revivals of the Isis-cult. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 14:54 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I would not challenge the (no longer practised) list regarding the late-classical cults of Mithras and Isis. The problem is, while cults existing today might claim to be continuations of the ancient cults and to present their ancient mysteries, on the strength of the evidence available to us, these claims are not expecially plausible. I think it would be easier to substantiate the genuine resucitation of a cult that was not a mystery religion.


 * I agree. All revived religious cults are most properly defined with a Neo- as in Zoroastrianism and Neo-Zoroastrianism. --Wetman 17:12, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is Christian anarchism included in the list of mystery religions? --Alif 21:01, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Mystery religion vs. new religious movements
I added the Yezidi religion because it seems a good example of one. Especially when compared to things like Wicca, Hermeticism, and Thelema being on the list. These three can be easily found online, with an abundance of online teachers.. Unlike Yezidi, which is not available to outsiders. - random internet person, Kempis

--

"Religions taught at different times and parts of the world through Esoteric Schools of Thought (see Category) aiming preparing a larger number of individuals toward spiritual Inititation. It almost always deals with some system of esoteric cosmology." (category desc as originally created by Wikipedia users, including myself)

Mystery religions are related to philosophies/teachings in esoterism/occultism, either ancient in earlier civilizations (as listed at the end of the article Mystery religion) or more recent ones derived from esoteric knowledge taught at earlier Mystery religions. They contain some common teachings as rebirth, esoteric cosmology, occult history of human evolution (as Epochs based on ancient destroyed Continents, including Atlantis), planes of existence, and Initiation into those same planes or inner worlds.

Both Mormonism and Scientology are recent religious movements which contain none of these teachings as taught in esoteric knowledge, they are neither related to earlier ones, neither a development on those same basis: so please do not add them to this category with which it as not even close relation: that would be desinformation and publicity); and please understand that it is not my function here to say, or to analyse indepth, what these movements may be. Regards, --GalaazV 19:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you define this as :"any religion that claims, overtly or not, an arcanum, or secret wisdom." ? --DanielCD 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, from my point of view, that would also be fine; the secret wisdom, as I am able to understand, does not impose to anyone to believe it as a fact, even less in the case of someone not acquainted to it; but, rather, it asks to be understood according to the discretion of those who are able to look into it. So, "a claim" is perhaps the most correct way of expression from those who are not acquainted to it, the majority of us at these times. --GalaazV 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually meant it in the sense of " they claim to have a secret wisdom/teaching." Not "they are claiming that Elvis lives." I was thinking some societies may be/have been so secretive they may not even want people to know they have secrets, and hence deny having (claim no) secrets/secret teachings even if they do. Perhaps "claim" was a bad word choice. --DanielCD 02:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

where's Wicca?
Why isn't Wicca included in this list? I've talked to many Wiccans, and nearly all of them agree that there are things that can 'only be told to Initiates', which seems to suggest it is a mystery religion.Perchta 07:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That's more of a New Age thing. I believe this article is for the ancient mystery religions. --DanielCD 14:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Plus "Wicca" as a term describes a whole range of religious practices. Admittedly practitioners debate how wide that definition should be. However, due to the lack of single vision in what Wicca is exactly, it isn’t in of itself a mystery religion. I suppose that a paragraph could be included to say that Wicca can take the form of a mystery religion. Briar Patch Wabbit 13:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Most Wiccans would tell you that they're not New Age and that they *are* practicing a mystery religion. As long as the article has a section on modern mystery religions, it should be included--especially if it's British Traditionalist Wicca we're talking about. It tends to rely heavily on revelation through various degrees of initiation and mystery play, and if that isn't the very definition of "mystery religion", I don't know what is. --Snowgrouse 17:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mormonism ain't esoteric
I can't see how it is esoteric. I removed it, my edit was reverted, and the above explanation doesn't explain it enough. I'm not gonna start an edit war. Perhaps it should be discussed on the Mormonism talk page.-- The ikiroid  18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think User:WilliamThweatt was right in reverting it. The LDS concept of secret (or "sacred, not secret") knowledge that can only be received in the temple by members who have proved themselves faithful, that is needed to progress in the afterlife, falls very closely in line with similar practices in ancient systems (Isis, Mithras, Gnostics, etc.) that define mystery religions. That secret knowledge is the "mystery" that defines a "mystery religion". - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 23:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream Christianity not a mystery religion(s)?
I don't see how mainstream Christiany(such as Roman Catholicis) isn't a mystery religion considering the Eucharist. The Eucharist seems to be some sort of initiation into secret knowledge. Anyone? --216.211.72.23 05:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Mystery Religions = psychoactive sacred meals
The Eucharist has sometimes been authentically psychoactive, and has sometimes been a placebo. Use of a psychoactive sacred meal is essential to mystery religions. A mystery religion without a psychoactive sacred meal would be ersatz, imitation, a placebo, inauthentic. What do you call it when a religion originally uses a psychoactive sacred meal, and develops a liturgical practice around that, and then replaces the psychoactive sacred meal by a placebo non-psychoactive substitute, while retaining the exterior shape of the liturgical practice? It would amount to an inert, de-activated, derivative version of a mystery religion.

The New Testament version of Christianity was shaped on the principle of using group psychoactive experiencing to support an alternative social-political system. http://www.egodeath.com/NTKingOnCrossInRomanEmpire.htm

This article ought to have Pleket's finding that in Asia Minor, the Emperor, his family, and Roma were plugged into the mystery-religion format, with 'mixed wine' and sacred meals, resulting in an authentic ancient mystery religion themed around Ruler Cult and Pax Romana -- inspiring the creation of the New Testament version of Christianity, as a rebuttal and alternative use of the group psychoactive experience to support an alternative social-political configuration.

Pleket, H. W. “An Aspect of the Emperor Cult: Imperial Mysteries.” Harvard Theological Review 58:331-47 (1965). Philip Harland carries on Pleket's work on ancient mystery-religion variants, and religious 'mixed-wine' drinking clubs - http://www.philipharland.com/topics.html.

-- MichaelSHoffman 03:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Gnosticism
Why is Gnosticism listed in both the 'list of current mystery religions' and the 'list of mystery religions no longer practised'? There should be something there to explain how ancient Gnosticism differs from modern Gnosticism, because otherwise the list is just misleading.--Stevefarrell 00:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientology?
Should it be included as a current mystery religion? Though personally i doubt it ever was, no matter how much they kick and scream about it...lol 124.82.12.158 15:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hogwash
I deleted the unsourced and completely indefensible claim that Wicca is the most prominent contemporary Mystery Religion. It's not even a candidate for flagging as "citation needed" since it is demonstrably untrue. Also, Manly Hall is not a reliable source on Greek History -- could someone do better? Yonderboy (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

School of Christ and Mysteries of Christ
The expressions school of Christ and mysteries of Christ are used in the Christian Church as a kind of analogy to some of the ancient mystery religions. It would be interesting to find links between historic initiations in Christianity and some of the basic foundations of the mystery religions. ADM (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You might have a close look at *Backgrounds of Early Christianity* by Everett Ferguson -- sorry I don't have time to look for the info myself. Yonderboy (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Modern Mystery Religions
The previously deleted heading of modern mystery religions has been reinstated, as it is directly relevant to the subject. To restrict the definition to only include the classical mystery cults of Greece, Rome and Egypt is to leave the article incomplete and to give the reader the impression that religions of this theology no longer exist. The reference to such mystery religions and groups emerging our of the Western Mystery Traditions is likewise relevant to the article. Further, I would like it to be noted that the inclusion of Wicca as a Mystery Religion has been duly cited (per the Pagan Federation) and fulfills all the criteria of being included under the definition of a Mystery religion. While the statement by Yonderboy on this discussion page, under the title "Hogswash", is correct in saying that Wicca may not be the "most prominent" among modern Mystery traditions, it is nonetheless a Mystery religion and a prominent one that serves as a good example of a modern mystery religion. However perhaps it should be noted that although Wicca is a mystery religion in it original form, the Rosicrucians and the Gold Dawn are not (despite being part of the Western Mystery Tradition) religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luthaneal (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 November 2008


 * Yonderboy is correct. Its hogwash. Your identification of new-age esoteric movements (so-called "Western Mystery Traditions") with historical Greco-Roman mystery religions is original research. Further, your reinstatement violates WP:BRD. It will be duly reverted again, and if you want to reinstate it, you will have to discuss your change here first.
 * This is Wikipedia, where "relevance" (and all other 2+2) is not something you define, but something that has to be established somewhere else first. If you have a problem with that, then take it to the pump.-- Fullstop (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW: The Mystery Religions are not a theology, and no, they no longer exist. New age esoterica might try and copy some of the practices employed in the Mysteries, but that does not make those movements Mystery Religions, which is what this article is about. If you want to write about "Western Mystery Traditions", then the article you are looking for is Western Mystery Tradition. -- Fullstop (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that the information provided does not constitute original research on my part. As I noted once already, the classification of Wicca as a Mystery Religion is given citation through the Pagan Federation.  However, I can most assuredly provide further citation of Wicca being modeled on the classical Mystery Cults and equally defined as a Mystery Religion, through the works of Vivianne Crowley, Professor Ronald Hutton and Margot Adler, to name but a few.
 * I would also like to add that to say that Mystery Cults do not have a unique theology is wrong and I would freely cite the works of Walter Burkert to support that, particularly his work "Ancient Mystery Cults". Additionally, to say that there are no Mystery Religions today is equally wrong.
 * Luthaneal (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be curious to see where Burkert said that, since that doesn't match my recollection of the book. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)
 * Well, too bad the Pagan Federation is not a cite-able authority on the Mystery religions.
 * So, yes, please do cite Walter Burkert unambiguously stating that the Wicca are a Mystery cult. Not just supporting, but stating. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Pagan Federation is not to be considered a cite-able source, then I still await the dismissal of such individuals like Prof. Ronald Hutton. But please, I would ask that you properly read what I have written. I did not at any time say that Walter Burkert states Wicca is a Mystery Cult. Walter Burkert writes about the ancient Mysteries, not modern ones. What I actually said is that Burkert quite distinctly outlines that Mystery Religions do possess their own distinct theology. Or if you prefer, their own theological model. Namely that they encompassed a unique field of myth, nature allegory and metaphysics, also that the process of initiation itself causes a change within the soul/psyche of the one undergoing the experience and provides an immediate encounter with the divine.
 * Luthaneal (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If Walter Burkert does not write about the new-age movements then why are you throwing his name into the arena? The theological "model" of the Mysteries is -- quite simply -- the promise of an afterlife, to be achieved through the acquisition of "alien wisdom" (as Momigliano succinctly described it). But what does this have to do with the price of tea in China? The conditions of classical antiquity and the Greco-Roman mind can't be replicated in the Age of DiscoveryChannel.
 * As for Ronald Hutton, you have yet to provide a citation/quotation or context, so I really can't begin to guess what you may be referring to.
 * And please refrain from regurgitating the association of "ancient Mysteries" with "modern ones". Its not going to become associated simply because you are convinced that they are associated. The Mystes were convinced that they were worshiping alien gods, but that was a construct of their own Greco-Roman cultural mindset, and doesn't make (e.g.) Roman-esque Isis spontaneously become an Egyptian-esque Isis, no matter how much the Romans believed that they were the same. Here too we have two distinct concepts with two distinct articles on WP. If you want to conflate these two disparate subjects (disparate insofar as the literature on the Greco-Roman Mysteries does not discuss new age movements), you will need to come up with a lot more than Ronald Hutton. Walter Burkert would have been great, but too bad that fizzled. So, what else do you have? -- Fullstop (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned Burkert, not in conjunction with Wicca, but in reply to your statement that Mystery Religions do not have a theology. With regards to a quote from Prof. Ronald Hutton:  "The third major aspect which I would myself attribute to modern pagan witchcraft is that it is a mystery religion, or a set of mystery religions."  However, it strikes me as actually being quite irrelevant whether or not any individual writing on the ancient Mysteries has ever mentioned the modern Mystery religions (and no, I will not refrain from making that association simply because you do not like it!). What is more relevant is that this is supposed to be an article on Mystery religions and that as such it cannot stop that definition at the ancient mystery cults, whilst still remaining a neutral article. The fact remains that there are religious groups in the modern day (of which Wicca is one) who identify themselves as Mystery Religions and are recognised as such by their members, broader society and academics who have written of them. Simply because you do not consider them to be worthy of such a classification is neither here nor there when attempting to maintain the neutrality of this article, as despite whatever you may feel, these religions do exist and they do model themselves as Mysteries based on the same criteria of what defines the ancient Mysteries. Additionally, this is not something that I alone am convinced of. This is the position of these groups and the people that write about them. I believe that another person has already contributed two such sources, one being a textbook. Indeed, it seems to me that this is not a matter of me arguing my opinion, but actually more a case of you arguing yours. This, I might add, is against the neutrality of this article.

As an aside, you have yet to actually make any good argument to justify your dismissal of such groups. Saying that the Greco-Roman mindset cannot be replicated in the modern day is (regardless of being your personal opinion) neither here nor there, as there is absolutely nothing to say that this has to be done in order for something to be classified as a mystery religion. When attempting to determine such religious classifications, there are only really two ways in which anyone can do so: either through orthodoxic association or orthopraxic association. In other words, they can only be defined based either on what they believe or what they do. You yourself have stated that the Mystery Cults of antiquity do not have a theology and while I would disagree, I would certainly say that they do not all have an identical theology. The shared theological trait is in the power of initiation itself and the secret rites beyond it. If this is to be the criteria by which a mystery religion is defined, then there is no reason to excluded the modern mystery religions from that definition. If, on the other hand, they are to be defined by items of orthopraxy then it must likewise noted that while all these cults possessed rites of initiation, they did not possess the same rites. Nor were the ritual practices beyond initiation identical across all cults, though perhaps similar. But regardless, if the definition of a "mystery religion" is to be based on orthopraxic grounds, then this does not dismiss the modern mystery religions from such a classification.

But again, even this is irrelevant.

If you want to add a disclaimer to the listing that says that such modern Mystery Religions are not a continuance of the ancient Mystery Religions, then that is fair enough and completely true. If you wanted to also add that the modern Mystery Religions do not originated in the mind set of the Greco-Roman Mysteries and the culture that gave birth to this variety of religion, then that is fine too. But disallowing the modern Mystery Religions to be mentioned on this page because you don't like the association is just wrong. To disallow them because they are not ancient is wrong. As I have already pointed out, these religious groups exist in the modern day and are recognised as such. Nobody is claiming that they are ancient mystery religions, but then, this article is not about ancient mystery religions, it is just about "Mystery Religions". That heading should convey the meaning of the term in the modern and ancient sense. Luthaneal (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A) your definition of "mystery religion" is not the same as that of your source B) your source's "mystery religion" also has "in the modern and ancient sense" Which of these two shall it be? -- Fullstop (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um. The point I was trying to make above is that you are assuming that an association between Wicca and the Greco-Roman Mysteries was a given, when it is in fact is is not actually a given. That would have nothing to do with "wrong" (or "right"). In fact, " disallowing the modern Mystery Religions to be mentioned on this page because you don't like the association is just wrong " is just as "wrong" (or "right") as the reverse. That is, allowing " the modern Mystery Religions to be mentioned on this page because you do like the association " is equally "wrong" (or "right"). See also WP:TRUTH, which neither you nor I are arbiters of.
 * If, as you state, the lead " should convey the meaning of the term in the modern and ancient sense ", then either ...
 * Why don't we stick with the sources? It will make this discussion more focused and easier to resolve. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources that have been presented below are not that helpful, in my opinion. The quote from Hunt is the only place where "mystery cult" is used in the book (according to the results on Google Books, anyway), so it's unclear to me how Wicca is similar to ancient mysteries. In regards to the Gruagach citation, WitchGrotto Press doesn't strike me as the kind of source one turns to for the academic study of religion. As far as I know, the term "mystery cult" nearly always refers to ancient Greco-Roman cults, and I'm surprised to see Wicca described as such. If good sources exist for this description I'm certainly not opposed to including this in the article, but an explanation of how Wicca is (or isn't) like the ancient mysteries would be nice. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, sticking to the sources is the way the article is right now. What Luthaneal wants is that the lead "convey the meaning of the term in the modern and ancient sense", which is not anything that any single source will convey.
 * By insisting that _"Mystery Religion"_ is both ancient and modern, Luthaneal has built himself a house of cards. What Luthaneal really meant to say was that _Wicca_ was both ancient and modern. But he is so convinced that Wicca == Mystery religion, that he's using the terms interchangeably, and foisting that definition onto this article. That's the danger I had previously pointed out.
 * When "Mystery religion" is defined as both ancient and modern, this new definition is not the same as that being used in sources (any source). The result will be OR in any definition of Wicca and in every real mystery religion article.
 * And since "both ancient and modern" will also not be any verifiable definition of Mystery Religion, we also end up with a case of V/SYNTH.
 * But when we stick to the sources, then Mystery Religion remains a Greco-Roman thing, and the definition of "Mystery Religion" is again the well-known one. Further, A) Wicca does not/cannot end up posing as a Greco-Roman religion, B) no OR problem for Wicca since the definition of "mystery religion" is not compromised.
 * In short: Without any mention of Wicca here, no action is needed in order to stick to the sources. But any mention of Wicca will be OR (or worse) at some level. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * ???? See the sources below. Are you saying that these sources are not solid? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Akhilleus had something to say about the value of the sources quoted below. I have so far not said anything about those sources since a) your choice of them was a picture-book demonstration why people should not use Google Books, b) they are not irrelevant since they do not pertain to this article. Just as...
 * "Wicca is essentially an immanent religion"
 * "Wicca is essentially witchcraft"
 * "Wicca is essentially the lore of the wise"
 * "Wicca is essentially a religion of freedom"
 * Wicca is essentially an agrarian mystery tradition wherein the aspects of plowing, planting, growing, and harvesting are all symbolic of the journey of the ..."
 * "Wicca is essentially a Goddess-oriented religion and craft"
 * "Wicca is essentially a lunar-based system" is not pertinent to discussion of the moon.
 * "Wicca is essentially a Nature-based religion"
 * "Wicca is essentially a fertility religion"
 * "Wicca is essentially ditheistic"
 * "Wicca is essentially a Celtic-oriented religion"...
 * etc, etc, etc ... are not pertinent to articles on immanence, witchcraft, wisdom, freedom, duotheism, agriculture, plowing, planting, growing, harvesting, goddesses, nature, fertility, Celtic religion. All these (and more, including those below) are definitions of Wicca, which is not relevant to this article. The sources listed below are also not the subject of my previous comment. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I must admit that I am not following you argument. Are you saying that Wicca is not a mystery cult, that Wicca is more/different than that depending on the observer/author/scholar, that Wicca should not be included in this page as this page is only for "ancient" mystery cults? What? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As for your call to WP:BRD, would it not be best to apply that as well yourself? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The "other uses" backdoor does not cut it since you do not actually state what the (alleged) "other use" is. Defining it as such will invariably be either OR (as you capably demonstrate) or based on a non-RS source. Alternatively, you will put this article in a position where such a definition applies pretty much to any society, religion or movement with an initiation ceremony, including all of those that predate the Mysteries.
 * Whee! The well-known Fresco methods strike again... I'll bite anyway.
 * What I am saying is...
 * If you want to include Wicca in this "Mystery Religion" (or "Mystery cult" as you prefer) article, you will need to find a source that defines the term "Mystery Religion" in a manner that allows this article to refer to Wicca as one of the Mysteries.
 * Until such a source is found, the definition used by this article (and, AFAICT, by everyone else) for the Mysteries does not permit Wicca to be defined as one.
 * When you find a source that fits that criteria you may as well redirect to Western Mystery Tradition, because that's what you'll have turned the article into.
 * Second: You have no reason whatsoever to insinuate that I'm not applying BRD to myself. A) I'm not the one making the tendentious insertions, and B) I am here discussing this.
 * Btw: Asking for more requests for explanation of explanation of explanation of explanation ..., and making insinuations of impropriety, while blithely violating policies and guidelines through the back door is old hat. Jossi, you need to change your tactics. The wikilawyer ones are transparent. Either find a source to turn this article into the flaky "cult" mess that you want it to become, or pull out and shut up. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some rather ridiculous things have been said here, about me in particular. The accusation was made that I was saying that "Wicca was both ancient and modern." That's rubbish. I never said that. In fact, repeatedly use the word "modern" in reference to Wicca. The implication has also been made that this is a definition that I have come up with and that the application of Mystery Religion to both old and modern religious groups in some way threatens the definition of the term and the understanding in this article. But that is the point of writing the definitions in a way that informs the reader of what is actually meant. I will also note that although many sources have now been given that show Wicca defined as a Mystery Religion, there has been no justification to the idea that such a term can only ever apply to the ancient Mysteries. So far, Wicca has fulfilled every definition of the Mysteries that has been given in this discussion, both by myself (taken from Burkert) and the definition given by Fullstop. However, although I note that a minor amendment has been made to this article stating that "Wicca has been described by sociologist Stephen J. Hunt and others as a mystery cult," part of the point here has been missed. Wicca was only ever mentioned here as a prominent example of a modern Mystery Religion. It was never intended as an attempt to give Wicca an individual placement in this article. The point being made was that Wicca is one of several modern Mystery Religions. Other examples could be The House of Isis and Osiris, The Minoan Brotherhood or possibly many of the smaller Mystery Cults that have emerged as independent neo-pagan traditions or those that are currently being explored through Hellenismos. But the names are pretty much irrelevant. Wicca served as a good example because it is a well known religion, but the real point was to add to the article that there are modern group that are classified as Mystery Religions, which either seek to emulate the form of the ancient mysteries in a modern religion, or to emulate the ancient mysteries themselves through modern reconstructions of ancient Greek and Roman religion. Just so we are clear though, Wicca falls under the first kind. They emulate the form of the ancient Mysteries, both in theological form and ritual form, but they are not attempting to recreate the ancient mysteries. But the basic definition of what constitutes a Mystery Religion (such as what has already been mentioned about initiation, attaining "alien wisdom", the afterlife, and so on), covers both the ancient mysteries and the modern mysteries, such as Wicca. Luthaneal (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wicca -> lead: " He [Gardner] said that the religion, of which he was an initiate, was a modern survival of an old witchcraft mystery religion that had existed in secret for hundreds of years, originating in the pre-Christian paganism of Europe.[1] " For the third or fourth time: The notion that this article is not about ancient mystery religions is in your head. There was absolutely nothing in it to suggest otherwise, and it is your own insertion that changed it. Even Gardner evidently considered "Mystery religions" to be ancient, and that Wicca was a continuation of that tradition. There is no reason to presuppose that any Wicca text would understand the term any other way. The definition of "mystery religion" being applied to Wicca here is the literal Latin one related to initiation/secrecy. This meaning is not only the reason why the classical Mysteries were so called, it is also why Western Mystery Traditions are so called, and also why the Catholic Mysteries are so called, and also why "mysticism" is so called. A common etymology is not sufficient reason to discuss them in one article; a disambiguation page for "Mystery" is fine for that.
 * So far, Wicca has fulfilled every definition of the Mysteries that has been given in this discussion, both by myself (taken from Burkert) and the definition given by Fullstop.
 * See Wikipedia policy on adding 2+2.
 * The accusation was made that I was saying that "Wicca was both ancient and modern."
 * No one said such a thing of you.
 * In the top post you invoked Burkert for your comparison against Wicca. The title of Burkert's book evidently did not inhibit your comparison of modern and ancient.
 * And before you presume anyone is misunderstanding you again: " this article is not about ancient mystery religions, it is just about "Mystery Religions". That heading should convey the meaning of the term in the modern and ancient sense. "
 * the real point was to add to the article that there are modern group that are classified as Mystery Religions
 * There are not "modern groups that are classified as Mystery Religions". There are modern groups who present themselves as Mystery Religions (and also present themselves as a great deal more besides).
 * All the quotations so far cited associate the terms "Wicca" and "mystery religion" but not a single quotation has been provided so far that would identify what exactly those quotations mean by "Mystery Religion". For all anyone knows the sources understand the term exactly as Gardner did. As loosely as the meaning has been batted about here, those sources might just as well be referring to Catholicism, initiates of the Shaolin monastery, and the boy scouts.
 * In addition to Gardner's claim that Wicca was "an old witchcraft mystery religion" that existed for centuries, the Wikipedia article on Wicca also has the following usage of "mystery religion": at Wicca->"Later developments": " Gardnerian Wicca was an initiatory mystery religion, admission to which was limited to those who were initiated into a pre-existing coven. "
 * there has been no justification to the idea that such a term can only ever apply to the ancient Mysteries.
 * No one has to justify exclusion. You have to justify inclusion.
 * But go ahead and take your pick.
 * Note for comparison what I've been telling you to use but you repeatedly choose to ignore.
 * If you want to Right Great Wrongs, you will need to find some other place to grind that axe.
 * For a mention of the Western Mystery Traditions to appear in an article on "Mystery religions", you will need to find this bridge already built by sources that discuss Mystery religions. This article is titled "Mystery religions" et. al., not "Wicca" et. al. When you find that source (which probably exists), this will warrant a properly qualified statement (and none of that unencyclopedic silliness like right now), but not a change in title or definition since the accepted usage (see links in the point immediately before this one) is well established, and remains valid until superseded.
 * And I repeat yet again: looking for definitions of Wicca et. al. as Mystery Religions is original research since "Mystery religion" is not the definition of Wicca, but one of a the vast number of definitions, and by cherrypicking it you are advancing a position that does not reflect the actual state of affairs. This cherrypicking also violates the need for balance since "Mystery religion" is not the definition of Wicca, it is your favorite definition of Wicca, and impossible to balance in the scope of this article. -- Fullstop (talk) 04:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Continuously calling it "original research" doesn't make it so. I think you have been given more than enough sources now to show that it is, in fact, a common and recognised definition, not just within the religion itself, but also in academic examinations of that religion.


 * The accusation was made that I was saying that "Wicca was both ancient and modern."
 * No one said such a thing of you.
 * Perhaps you meant something other than the words you used then? I quote: "What Luthaneal really meant to say was that _Wicca_ was both ancient and modern."


 * As I have told you already, the initial mention of Burkert was in reply to a specific point made by yourself about the theology (or lack thereof) of Mystery Religions. However, in the broader sense a comparison between the ancient mystery cults and modern mystery religions is perfectly permissible, especially when practitioners of those religions make the same comparison and when it lends towards establishing further why they are classified as mystery religions, outside of the sources already provided on the subject.


 * The notion that this article is only supposed to be about the ancient mystery cults is in your</I> head. Simply because the first mystery religions were established in the ancient world does absolutely nothing to change the fact that the term "mystery religion" is likewise used today to refer to certain religious groups of the same nature.
 * The onus is still on you to establish why the mystery religions of today should not be included in an article about mystery religions.
 * Though, since a basic inclusion has already been amended to the article now, perhaps that point is moot.


 * There is no reason to presuppose that any Wicca text would understand the term any other way.
 * I will provide some Wiccan sources to demonstrate that among Wiccans, the context of their religion as mystery religion (in the same context as the ancient mystery religions) is understood.


 * There are not "modern groups that are classified as Mystery Religions". There are modern groups who present themselves as Mystery Religions (and also present themselves as a great deal more besides).
 * If they were only classed as mystery religions among members of those cults, then you may have had a point. However, as the multiple sources show, this is not the case and such groups are classed as mystery religions by many people outside of these religions, including academics of history and anthropology.
 * In fact, I find it surprising that their status as mystery religions is even being questioned, as it is quite well established.


 * Your insistence that the sources given do not demonstrate a decent understanding or meaning for the term "mystery religion" is just silly. This just another attempt at moving the goal posts.


 * Your attempt to redefine what "mystery religion" means within Wicca is little more than your opinion and apparently based on nothing more than a rather poor understanding of the practices and beliefs of these groups that you have gained from wikipedia. Do not infer what you think Wiccans mean by "mystery religion", especially not from a page in Wiki that provides the reader with no such explanation beyond simply saying that Wicca <I>is</I> a mystery religion and that it involves initiation.
 * It is not simply based on "common etymology" and the statement that it is, is nothing but an unsourced opinion that has been inferred through your own original research.


 * No one has to justify exclusion. You have to justify inclusion.
 * It has been more than justified already.


 * The mention of the Western Mystery Tradition was only ever included as relevant history to the movement from which modern mystery religions emerged. It isn't essential to the entry, nor to the classification of these religions as mystery religions.


 * Yes, "Mystery Religion" is <I>A</I> definition of Wicca. So is polytheistic religion.  So is pagan religion.  So is immanent religion.  Simply because the theological structure of the religion fills under many headings, does not mean that those headings are independently wrong.
 * Likewise, simply because there are non-mystery groups that are often classified as Wicca does not change the fact that the religion was founded as a mystery religion and that those traditional practices continue as a mystery priesthood of the same name.
 * Again, you're just trying to move the goal posts.
 * If you are worried about other definitions of Wicca then it is quite simple to say "Wicca was founded as a Mystery Religion and a priesthood of that mystery religion continues to exist across Britain, Europe and North America." See, it only took one sentence.


 * At this point it is a simple matter. Earlier it was declared that the definition should probably just be left to the sources and lots of sources have now been provided that demonstrate the fact that Wicca is a mystery religion.
 * Luthaneal (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion with interest but since the last comment from Fullstop I really do feel moved to post:<BR> 1. It's clear to me that Luthaneal is not posting these comments because he has "an axe to grind", or because he feels a need to "right wrongs", rather, it seems to me that his only goal is to see correct and unbiased information provided. That is the goal of Wikipedia after all is it not?<BR> 2. The title of this article is "Mystery Religions" is it not. It strikes me that if you are not happy to include modern Mystery Religion's then perhaps a better title for the article would have been Ancient Mystery Religions. However, since you chose to call it Mystery Religions then it seems silly to me to deny that modern Mystery Religions exist and virtually refuse to include them given that it is patently obvious through multiple sources that they do indeed exist. I am also unclear as to why, when Wicca was clearly provided as just one example of one of the modern Mystery Religions, you seem so hell bent ignoring the fact that there are many others and fixating on that example instead.<BR> 3. It seems to me that there are more than adequate sources to demonstrate that Wicca is indeed a Mystery Religion, both from Wiccan and non-Wiccan sources and from academic sources as well. One has to wonder why you refuse now to accept sources that you asked for the provision of now that they have been provided.<BR> 4. Wicca and the other Mystery Religions are termed as such, not because they have "secrets", which from someone who is writing about Mystery Religions, seems a very simplistic way to view it, but because they adhere to similar templates to the Ancient Mystery Cults. That is to say that there is usually an outer, public face of the religion and then there is the inner Mystery Cult or priesthood. Initiation is a requirement for all of these groups and this experience then opens the door for the initiate to experience the Mysteries pertaining to that particular group within the context of that group and in an experiential way. Often the group follows a similar pattern of theology as the Ancient groups did, using myth cycles, Mystery plays and nature allegories to describe their theology within that context. Obviously this doesn't mean they are the same as the Ancient Mystery Cults and I don't see that anyone has claimed that they are - however, if they follow a similar template then they are clearly modern Mystery Religions.<BR> 5. I'm really having a hard time understanding your position. The assertion that Mystery Religion is not the only definition for Wicca and that it is only Luthaneal's favourite definition strikes me as very odd. Certainly Wicca has many definitions (including fertility religion, nature religion etc etc) but that doesn't change the fact that one of its major defining features is that of a Mystery Religion. I can state categorically that Wiccans on the initiatory and lineaged path (rather than those following the wider witchcraft religion and the public teachings) describe Wicca as a Mystery Religion. I am not speaking as an outsider to the religion but as an initiate of it. I have no doubt that initiates of the other modern Mystery religions would feel very much the same as I do. Gardnerian1 (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Category:Christ Myth vs. Category:Mystery religions
Category:Mystery religions is itself a category within Category:Christ Myth. — Robert Greer (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be. That hierarchy implies that mystery religions are a sub-topic of Christianity, which is clearly untrue--the Eleusinian Mysteries may have contributed to Christianity, but they aren't part of Christianity. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

well, the essence of the "Christ myth theory" is that early Christianity started out as a mystery religion, with "the Christ" being their local hero-god initiation to whom will buy you salvation, only later embellished with biographical details of a wandering teacher "Jesus" in Galilee who supposedly initiated the cult. This is false, or I should say rejected by the vast majority of scholars. The actual situation is precisely the inverse, early Christianity started out as anything but a mystery religion, with active proselytization and preaching, which is the exact opposite of the secrecy essential to the mysteries, and it only came to be interpreted, by outsiders, as "yet another mystery cult" because of the obvious similarities in myth and ritual, and it came to adopt even more aspects of the mysteries as it attracted converts who were "trying out" various religions, and later by its clandestine nature imposed by persecution. --dab (𒁳) 11:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

the move
I don't quite see why mystery religion had to be moved to Greco-Roman mysteries just because somebody managed to show that "Wicca has been described as a mystery religion". We have a redirect called Western mystery tradition, and we can just link to that for disambiguation purposes. Explicit "Greco-Roman mysteries" is a valid term, it gets like 50 hits on google books, but "mystery religion", "mystery cult" or simply "mysteries" is by far the more common term. I do not see any real reason to disambiguate. --dab (𒁳) 13:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Mystery schools
I'm not familiar with this topic but does this article have any worth? It could possibly merged here but it just looks like promotional OR to me. The singular form "Mystery school" already redirects here so I've redirected the plural Mystery schools here too for now. If someone wants to merge this content be my guest. -- &oelig; &trade; 20:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation of "Mysterium"
A discussion relevant to this page is at Talk:Mysterium (Scriabin). — <font face="Trebuchet MS">SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Availability of Christian ritual
This statement seems a little misleading to me: "Although Early Christianity was not a mystery religion, its central theology and ritual being available, and indeed actively preached, to the uninitiated". The fact that what we understand to be the "Liturgy of the Word" and "Liturgy of the Eucharist" were originally actually the "Liturgy of the Catechumens" and the "Liturgy of the Faithful" is precisely because the uninitiated (and even those who were initiated but not in good standing) were not allowed to be present during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The Liturgy of John Chrysostom explicitly commands "all catechumens depart; let no catechumen remain" when the Liturgy of the Eucharist begins. As such, it is quite clear that in ancient times that the "central... ritual" was not "being available... to the uninitiated". Deusveritasest (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mystery religions throughout history
I was assigned a research paper in my comparative religion class, which led me to this page. These kinds of faiths seem to show up every few hundred years, so why does the generic search term "mystery religions" redirect to something specific to one part of the world? Doesn't this violate NPOV? 24.145.157.81 (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)