Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive NPOV in the 1st paragraph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 , 27, 28,29,30,31,32,33,34
The following discussion is an archived section of Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses. No further edits should be made to this page.

Working toward NPOV in first paragraph

The first paragraph says JWs believe that "the Church departed from the original faith in major points (Great Apostasy)." It then concludes with:

This non-acceptance is mutual; quite a number of non-Jehovah's Witness Christians believe that it is the Jehovah'sWitnesses who have departed from the original faith.

This seems to me like an imperfect way to phrase this. I'm not sure "non-acceptance" is the best word to use, and the "it is the JWs who" bit seems to suggest a rebuttal, rather than a neutral statement, etc. I attempted to fix this by replacing that sentence with:

Many Protestant groups consider the Jehovah's Witness faith to be a false teaching, and the group is often mentioned on lists of alleged cults.

This wording isn't perfect either, though. A user reverted, saying that NPOV means mentioning all points of view. (He may have though I was trying to erase criticism of the JWs, which I don't want to do. All points of veiw do indeed need to be shown.)

So how do we word this in an NPOV way? The point we want to make here is that many non-JW Christians see JW as a false departure. But we don't want to sound rude or as if we were saying "au contraire".

I think my phrasing makes the point better, and without sounding condescending, but I'm open to suggestions. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 03:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

To be honest It should be stated that MOST who consider themselves Christian know little about Jehovah's witnesses and that those who do generally will admit that they are impressed by their loyalty to Christian principals. (ex: law abiding, tax-paying, non-violent, adherant to bible morality, etc.) I hear this often in my work in the field ministry as one of Jehovah's Witnesses. Exceptions to this are genrally those who have some financial gain to achieve from the discreditng of JW's. Particularly notable are those who use the internet as a medium for presenting their platform. Plenty of these types have tried to force their opinions here only to be shown up by the good research and fairness of the editors and admins in the English WP. Generally, Then most who consider themselves Christian would not consider Jehovah's witnesses to be non-Christians or a "cult", but rather it is the minority who shout the loudest who do! my 2c george m

Now the text says "Many Protestant groups consider the Jehovah's Witness faith to be a false false teaching, " I think this is not precise. I do not know any Protestant church who does not consider JWs faith to be a false teaching. Perhaps anyone can help me out and name one Protestant church who doesn't? Besides it is not the Protestants alone. The Catholics think the same way: http://www.dioezese-linz.or.at/pastoralamt/weltanschauungsfragen/jehovas.asp#z That is a German language page from the Catholic church in Austria, and they even name it a "cult". So I would prefer to write "most other churches" instead of "many Protestant churches". Kind regards, Heiko Evermann 20:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is a tough one. On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, Catholics consider Episcopalianism to be a false teaching. So do Methodists, Mormons, Jahova's Witnesses, and Baptists. But should the article on Episcopalianism start out by saying that many Christians consider it to be a false teaching? As a rule of thumb, if something is true about Catholicism or Episcopalian as well as JWs, but it would seem out-of-place to have it in that article, then it shouldn't be in this one either. So how should we word the first paragraph? – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 23:28, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

There is an easy answer: the older version of that sentence just stated: "many other Christians". In this case we do not have that problem. Concerning the mutual recognition of churches, I think that you are wrong. I did not know that Baptists consider Episcopalianism to be a false teaching. And I do doubt that. In fact most Christian groups consider each other Christian. Churches that practice Believers Baptism do not accept infant baptism, but they would not doubt that pracising members of these churches are Christians. Baptist churches (including Pentecostals and Adventists) usually do NOT state that baptism is a precondition to "being saved". So the situation is a lot different than the differences beween JW and non-JW. Here both sides view each other as heretic. The Catholic POV concerning other churches is a bit more complicated than you stated. There are churches that they consider to be valid churches, as long as they believe in and practise Aposolic succession. But even a Catholic would consider a Baptist's baptism to be a valid baptism. But JWs and Catholics alike do not recognize each others Baptisms. In summary: the mutual non-acceptance between JWs and non-JWs is that grave that all differences between Catholics, Protestants etc. are light in comparision to this. Heiko Evermann 11:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hm. I see. I don't know enough about the relationships and attitudes to know whether you're right about that or not, so I'll just lurk for a while. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 16:28, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

OK, my point is this: when talking to people in general who see themselves as christians, I generally get good responses about my faith, whether I get "interest" in learning my religion or not. I would say that the majority of negativism comes not from "Christians" in general, but from various Christian "activists". Some clergy fall into this category, but most are profiting through soem sort of publishing effort aimed at promoting their point of view. Before yiou go accusing JW's of this also, remember: JW's get no money personally from the donations recieved, it all goes back into the ministry. If you were to ask ten people who are not JW's but who know JW's well you would get a high percentage who said JW's are christians This includes those who have been "disfellowshipped".george m

After much effort, discussion and research on the part of a number of WP contributors a new draft intro has been prepared for this article. It attempts to incorporate all the points that have been discussed and suggested over the past several months. All the main points and issues are included. An earnest effort has been made to maintain a NPOV presentation in keeping with WP policy. Please note that this new draft intro includes all points from the previous version with two exceptions:
  • 1. The reference to Abel as the first witness of Jehovah is not included. Perhaps it can be worked into the Origins section.
  • 2. The points regarding the Great Apostasy and the ever-popular "mutual-non-acceptance" issue are all more fully--and more appropriately--discussed in greater detail in the following paragraphs of the article.
Please comment here before making any further edits. Thanks to all who contributed to this project, but in particular special thanks go to Tom Hawstom and Heiko Evermann for their help in this regard, and Wesley for his encouragement to persevere! --DannyMuse 08:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Trinity: May I suggest that the sentence in the introduction paragraph which reads "Although Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christians, it is significant that they do not accept the Trinity doctrine as taught by the majority of those also professing to be Christian." be deleted because their specific doctrinal beliefs, including Trinity, are covered elsewhere.--JW-somewhere 14:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your point is well taken, however that language is included here to be balanced and NPOV. Many of the contributors to this article believe it is necessary to distinguish JWs from other groups because of their non-accectance of the Trinity doctrine. As you probably know, many believe that JWs are not Christians because they do not accept the Trinity. Please compare the current introduction to the previous intro which began:
Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) are a nontrinitarian Christian group.
That was the first sentence of the old introduction. Hopefully, you'll agree that the current intro is a definite imporovement! Many different intros have been proposed and tried out in an attempt to be accurate, balanced and NPOV. If you haven't already, you should read all of the discussion on this subject here and also in the above subsection. Additionally, several of the archives have long threads on the point. (see Archive links at the top of this page) --DannyMuse 17:32, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Trinity, continued: Thank you, DannyMuse. I appreciate your point. However, JWs differ from other religions on many points. In fact every religion differs from every other religion on one or more points, otherwise they would all be the same! So, the problem is , what, if anything, to draw attention to in the first paragraph! There are a number of other key issues that could alternatively be highlighted, for example, why not instead say "Although Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christians, it is significant that they are conscientious objectors, in contrast with the majority of those also professing to be Christian who are in the armed forces and/or who are not conscientious objectors." !!! I think this is an even more important issue than belief in a trinity! HOWEVER .... 'non-combatant stance' is also covered elsewhere. And I don't suggest for one moment that this issue of neutrality be listed in the opening paragraph, because it could then be contrued that other differences have been omitted and then you would have the problem of listing the other "significant differences". The point I am making is that it is very difficult to be NPOV. Even the word "Although..." already has non-NPOV implications, as well as the words "professing" etc.
Given that Wikipedia suggests that entries outlining the beliefs of the respective religions are as defined by themselves (or words to that effect) I doubt that JWs, when discussing their beliefs, start with the introduction..."By the way, I should point out that we do not believe the Trinity, but the majority of other Bible religions do...". With regard to the new version, v. the old version (i.e. re "non-Trinitarian" etc) I can't see any improvement. Although Trinitarians might want to know, or want the world to know, that JWs are non-Trinitarian, similarly, many who have loyally served their respective countries by being "conscientious supporters" might feel that you should highlight the non-combatant stance of JWs early in the article. etc etc In summary, I think the best NPOV in the introduction would be to omit reference to trinity. If you want to draw attention to the fact that the beliefs and practices of JWs differ from those of many other Bible religions, why not say something just like that! Then the reader can read on to find out just what JWs believe and then they are enabled to take an informed view as to which particular belief or practice is or is not significant. Maybe? --JW-somewhere 12:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
JW-S, thank you for your respectful discussion. You raise some important concerns. Unfortunately, addressing them turns out to be much harder than raising them. It is important that the introduction distill the essence of the character of the worldwide Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in a non-biased way, and we are all trying to figure out how to do that. I agree with you that the current intro is not yet quite there, but probably I have different (and weaker) reasons than yours:
  • I don't think the current intro hits the main defining characteristics of JWs as seen by those who know them or who note them.
  • I think the current intro has some biased language and tone (Does "are widely known for" imply fame or notoriety? Does "in obedience to" imply relatively advanced discipleship?)
Because I realize the degree of effort that has gone into the current intro, I am slow to find fault with it. I would, however, support efforts to poll published works in print and on the WWW for quintessential distillations of what JW-ism is, or what the JWs are.
It's important to keep in mind that 1) Christianity is the largest world religion, 2) most Christians hold trinitarianism to be a core defining aspect of Christianity and have spent immense effort defending trinitarianism, and 3) for those who stand behind trinitarianism and against the legitimacy of JW-ism as a form of Chrisitanity, it is crucially important to demarcate clearly between JW-ism and themselves (co-communing ecumenical Christians), and using the term "non-trinitarian" is a very economical and mild way to do that. Tom - Talk 15:53, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Tom, thanks for raising those points. I've had the same question about phrases like "widely known" and "in obedience to," but didn't want to bring those up when bigger issues were still being worked on. I would add that the issue of non-combative status or being a conscientious objector is generally not seen as a litmus test for Christianity by most denominations, the way trinitarianism is. Even though they may not require their members to be conscientious objectors or non-combatants, neither do they require their members to enlist in time of war, and generally would not object on religious grounds to someone making a personal choice to be a noncombatant. Belief in the trinity is a whole other ballgame; "nontrinitarian" was added as a compromise to qualify the sort of "Christians" the JW's are. Wesley 17:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And that (classification) is important in an encyclopedia. We need to try to honestly classify Jw-ism among the world religions based on all the usual criteria: beliefs, origins, history, sociology, etc. Succinct classification is a worthy goal. Tom - Talk 22:34, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Tom & Wesley, Here are my responses to some of the points/questions you raised:
  • "widely known for" implies BOTH fame and notoriety (depending on your POV). As Officer Joe Gannon used to say, "Those are the facts, ma'am, just the facts."
Frankly I'm surprised by your comments. So please tell me what question/issue you have with this expression?!?!?!?
  • "in obedience to" MUST be read in context with the next part of the sentence "their understanding of Jesus' command ..." So the whole thing reads:
JW's conduct their ministry in obedience to their understanding of Jesus' command to teach and make disciples (Matthew 28:19-20).
Tom, please tell me what you think ARE the "main defining characteristics of JWs" since you say you don't think this intro "hits" them! Thanks, --DannyMuse 03:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Danny, I don't know. I don't think I could do a better job. That is why I let your intro stand until now. I agree with your sentiments, and only time will lead us to a more satisfying solution. But I will try to tell from my point of view what JWs are known for:
  1. Dedicated and aggressive door-to-door proselytizing
  2. Non-observance of birthdays, Christmas, Easter, and patriotic holidays
  3. Non-observance of patriotic ceremony (pledge of allegiance in the United States)
  4. Special translation of the Bible
  5. Refusal of blood transfusions
Among Christians, Jws are also known for the following:
  1. Denial of the divinity of Jesus as God the Son
  2. Denial of salvation in heaven for all but the 144,000.
  3. Belief in soul sleep; denial of a spirit world
To the suspicious or more closely interested, JWs are also known for
  1. Worldwide uniformity of practice and doctrine
  2. Faceless worldwide leadership and organization
Wesley and other non-JWs would have to comment on the relevance of my list. Tom - Talk 04:08, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean by "soul sleep" and denial of a spirit world. JW's do believe in heaven or a "plane of existance" inhabited by spirit creatures. Are you talking about something different? -- elykyllek 04:49, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
I don't think I am. It is my understanding that JW's read Ecclesiastes to say that the dead know nothing at all, and therefore when we die there is utter nothingness until the day of the resurrection. I have seen this referred to by others (not JWs) as "soul sleep". I myself would say, "JW's don't believe in a sentient and living state of the spirit/soul in paradise or hell while awaiting the resurrection and final judgement." Tom - Talk 07:04, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
You are correct, I just had never heard of it described as "soul sleep", learn something new everyday. -- elykyllek 15:46, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Well, maybe we shouldn't use that term. It just seemed so concise I couldn't resist. Of course your term, if concise, would be better. What would be your shortest description of the unique belief regarding the state of the soul between death and the resurrection. Most of Christianity has beliefs that are more or less harmonious with the modern reports of near death experiences, ie. that the body falls away or the spirit rises and continues existence (depending on the individual's spiritual status) anywhere in a continuum of awareness from dark nothingness to glorious light, rapture, and understanding. Tom - Talk 18:58, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

On 8 Dec 2004, 168.209.97.34, made some small, but significant changes to the intro. Eight minutes later user Khendon, who is a new contributor to this article, drastically changed it because, according to him, these changes were "NPOV; the previous phrasing made their self-identification sound invalid." The problem is that Khendon's edit, while factually accurate (unlike the one he changed), was worded in a confrontational way. This is exactly the kind of problem that the current intro is designed to avoid. Let's keep this article both factually accurate and using non-confrontational language. I'm certainly open to suggestion on any changes, but as the longtime editors and contributors of this article have repeatedly suggested: "Please, discuss them here in the talk page first." Thanks! --DannyMuse 22:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have some difficulty with Danny's wholesale revert of Khendon's edits. I thought Khendon's edits were an improvement. They embodied a more sympathetic tone. The version Danny reverted to (yes, I know he's a JW, and yes, I know he wrote that version), sounds skeptical, which is not in harmony with our NPOV policy. Please note that our policies and Wikiquette also discourage wholesale reversions of good faith edit attempts. Danny, you owe it to Khendon to go back to his edits and try to address only what you thought was problematic. -[unsigned] (later) Tom - Talk
Who are you that I may direct my response and comments to you? - --DannyMuse 22:38, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Ah, Tom Hawstom, I see it was you, but you uncharacteristically did not sign your post! See my response above which I was writing apparently at the same time you also were responding to my changes. Hopefully that will explain the reasons for my actions, addressing what I thought was a problem with his wording. If not, please let me know. As to whether or not I "owe it to Khendon" to offer any further explanation I'll wait to hear from him on the subject.

Oops. Sorry about that.  :-D I really think Khendon's version was more sympathetic and less confrontational. The word significantly sounds to the casual passer-by like a raised eyebrow more than the alternative Khendon proposed. But our policies really do ask that we avoid wholesale reverts except in the case of bad faith editing, or as otherwise expressed, "don't bite the newbies". Tom - Talk 23:45, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Tom, frankly I can't understand how you can view Khendon's version as more "sympathetic and less confrontational." But I'm trying. In the meantime, I respectfully disagree. The difference is that as it was the intro discussed what JW's do and do not believe; when Khendron changed it, it became a commentary about what some others believe about JWs. While this is certainly true, I believe that it is both:
  • More confrontational - whenever you start saying what one group believes about another group things can quickly get nasty; and,
  • Less important - it should be included, but later in the article. In fact, these points are made in the subsection: "Opposition to Jehovah's Witnesses."
As a positive response, I'm trying out a revised intro deleting the "significantly" phrase. As always I'm open to suggestions! Regarding your comments re "newbies" I'm trying to follow the example set by you and Wesley. Keep those cards and letters coming!!! --DannyMuse 05:31, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hope you'll forgive me for editing first, I just find it works better. I think that the intro as currently worded ("Although Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christians, they do not accept the Trinity doctrine...") has a feeling of subtle bias - it sounds, to me, like it's trying to quietly imply "They think they're Christians, but they're not because...".

But I take your points about confrontation and importance; and, incidentally, it's much better already without the "significantly"). I'm going to also take out the word "Although" and see how that fits. What do you think?

PS, Newbie? Hmph! ;-) --Khendon 07:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Term obviously used loosely regarding present company. ;-) Meant we hadn't seen you in these parts lately. Tom - Talk 14:36, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Khendon, nice to hear from you! Yes, I like your recent edit. If you've read at any of the discussion under this subsection or the previous one you know how controversial this article in general and its first paragraph in particular have been. (Plus much of the archived content deals with these same issues.) Many of the contributors to this article believe it is necessary to distinguish JWs from other groups because of their non-accectance of the Trinity doctrine. As you probably know, many believe that JWs are not Christians because they do not accept the Trinity. The current intro is an effort to address that in a factual, but non-confrontational/controversial manner.
PS - Sorry, if the "newbie" comment caused the taking of umbrage. But take it out on Tom, as it was his term, not mine. :) I referred to you as "a new contributor to this article." At the time your user link was dead and a quick check of last eight months of edit history for this article didn't have your name. It looks like you've been away for awhile. Welcome back! --DannyMuse 14:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Heh, no offence taken, I was just teasing :-) Last time I edited this article was in fact 2002. Time does fly... Anyway... I just felt there was a subtle (unintentional, probably!) propagandist overtone to the phrasing as it was. It's much better now, in my opinion. One more thing - is the Trinity doctrine the only important difference to other Christians not accepting them, or should it be mentioned as just the most important? --Khendon 15:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know this is going way back to the beginning of time, but is there really any reason we can't just say "Jehovah's witnesses are non-trinitarian Christians"? This is slightly different from as discussed before, because now Danny has put it at the end of the intro instead of the very first sentence. Tom - Talk 14:44, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Arghhhh! Tom, that horse is dead, brother! You know that all the JWs that have contributed to this article object to the "non-trinitarian Christians" phrase for several reasons. But first let's remember this point from the Wikipedia:Manual of Style under the subject "Identity"
"When writing an article about specific people or specific groups, always use the terminology which they themselves use"
JW’s do NOT refer to themselves as “nontrinitarians.” There's just something wrong with the very first adjective used to describe a thing being a reference to what it is not! There are a lot of things that we are not, this is just one of them. For perspective, please consider this: this article is currently about 1800 words long. The point of JWs not accepting the trinity begins to be discussed at the 84th word. I think this early placement shows its relative importance in the article. Why do you think it should be the very first thing stated about JWs? --DannyMuse 15:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Disclosure: I am not a trinitarian; I am a Mormon. Clarification: I don't want it in the first sentence; I like it better where you (Danny) put it. My suggestion was that perhaps since you have changed the dynamic (for the better) by moving the bone about "Are JWs Christians" to the end of the intro, it might be worth at least thinking again about shortening the whole statement (to avoid "but" "although" "significantly", and the slight implication that they are only self-identified as Christians) to "JWs are a non-trinitarian branch of Christianity". In the new (improved) position and context, this seems (to me) to more clearly say that the final un-biased outsider's view is that JW's are classified as Christians, and to avoid eliciting screams from the trinitarians who doubt JWs are Christians at all, we say non-trinitarian. The pros are it's short and devoid of innuendo. Tom - Talk 15:58, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm, lemme' think on that. --DannyMuse 16:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Tom, regarding your recent edits: Isn't it curious that the reactions we expect from others is sometimes different than the one we get? I actually like your change to "proselytizing", it makes sense. But I can't agree with the "They place notable emphasis on" revision. It just isn't accurate. These things are not teachings that are emphasized among JWs, they are essential core beliefs. The word "emphasis" just doesn't cut it.
"Essential core beliefs" I like that. Go for it. Tom - Talk 17:21, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
In the interim I have reverted that phrase to the previous one, but have removed the word "widely" from "widely known" because I recall that both you and Wesley had issues with that. Could you explain why you have a problem with "widely known"? Do you doubt its veracity?!? When I read your previous comments about that it was unclear to me what was the objectional point. We last discussed that on December 1st, 2004, but have since been occupied with other matters. Perhaps if I understood that we could come up with something better! --DannyMuse 16:57, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Today somebody replaced "are widely known for their" with "tout their" in the LDS Church article. (I didn't previously know that phrase was being used in the Mormonism articles). I think that change shows how "are widely known for" comes across. It has the tone of a promotional brochure. Of course "tout" is full of innuendo. I thought "place notable emphasis on" was straightforward, but "core essential beliefs and practices include" is perhaps better; it conveys more info. Tom - Talk 17:21, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
Tom, Interesting. This is why I removed "widely" - I suspected it might be for some reason along those lines. I like what you're after here. Except that the current revision sounds like these few things are ALL of our "core essential beliefs". So I've slightly reworded that. I added "Some ..." for what I hope are obvious reasons and deleted "essential" as it seemed redundant. I know I used both it in my last post to you, but I was trying to be emphatic. It seemed unnecessary in the intro. Lemme' know what you think. :)
Looks cool.
BTW, why did you include "and practices" in the comments about your revision above but not in the actual revision?!? --DannyMuse 17:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sloppy editing. Merely sloppy editing. Tom - Talk 19:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

I like what I see in the first paragraph. I don't know its the one, true first paragraph, but it isn't problematic, from what I can see. Tom - Talk 20:04, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

This "NPOV first paragraph" is tricky, I can see that, and I can't suggest anything that pleases everyone. I have read many definitions of Jehovah's Witness in reference works, dictionaries etc. In my view, the shorter definitions are better because the longer ones tend towards defining who is and who is not a Christian! (to be continued)--JW-somewhere 18:00, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it still bothers you, we could say:
JWs...core beliefs:
  • bar
  • foo
Many others also find the following characteristics to be distinctive and definitve of JWs:
  • they are not trinitarians
  • they don't celebrate Christmas and birthdays
  • they don't salute national flags
  • they don't believe in a spirit consciousness that continues at death.
  • nixit blah blah

Maybe! Perhaps I should see how other faiths are defined in Wikipedia e.g. Muslims, Jews, Hinduism, etc. This might provide some external/impartial editorial style tips! So when I have time I'll give it further thought (Ecclesiastes 12:12 !)..in the meantime, don't wait for me, do as the spirit moves you! Regards.--JW-somewhere 22:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

meanwhile....

Tom. In your Talk comments above (15:53, Nov 29, 2004) you say "most Christians hold trinitarianism to be a core defining aspect of Christianity." However, I believe it is the Bible, not Christians, that should define what the core defining aspects of Christianity are. Given that a Christian is a person who is a disciple of Jesus Christ, relevant key Bible verses help us in identifying the core defining aspects of Christianity e.g. Christ Jesus himself said "By this, all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves." John 13:35 (RSV Catholic Edition). And at John 8:31,32 (NIV) he said "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples, Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." As far as I can see, the Bible does not define Christianity in trinitarian terms nor does it use trinity allusions to explain Christian discipleship. I appreciate that some doctrinal views differ between Christian denominations, but I think it is inappropriate to define Christianity in relationship to a particular doctrine, such as trinitarianism, which is not universally accepted by all those professing the faith. --JW-somewhere 22:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, JW, you and I agree on that. But unfortunately I think 2 billion Christians disagree.  :-) So what say you? Shall we take 'em on? No, forgive my high spirits. We shal love them and respectfully request they love us in return. And on the Wikipedia we shall frankly recognize the strenght of their history and numbers. Tom - Talk 19:17, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom! I'll try to return the same love, and remain focused on ideas rather than people. JW-somewhere, I don't expect to convince you, but share this only to illustrate that other interpretations are possible. It is Christians who have 'enfleshed' Christianity throughout history (thinking of Christmas), Christians who wrote and later canonized the New Testament. To Trinitarians, the Bible is full of trinitarian allusions, even if the Nicene Creed terminology isn't spelled out verbatim. And while the Bible does support tradition and the passing on of teachings by both written and oral means, and it does support the authority of the scriptures, the Bible nowhere endorses sola scriptura, an ironically unscriptural position. Wesley 23:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(Whoa! I always thought denial of sola scriptura was one of the "sins" of Mormonism. I guess that would only be in the minds of "sola scripturists".) I really like the way Wesley has helped us focus on trinitarianism as a distillation of all that mainstream Christianity has against non-trinitarian or anti-trinitarian Christians. It connotes rejection of history, consensus, and common core. Count your blessings; it is better than being labelled a cult :-D. Tom - Talk 15:56, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

On 07:42, 22 Dec 2004, anonymous editor 155.232.250.19 revised the introductory sentence dealing with the Trinity issue and gave the following edit summary: ‘Removed "professing to be Christian", replaced with "most christian [sic] religions"’. This is not exactly accurate. The sentence was:

Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christians, but do not accept the Trinity doctrine as taught by the majority of those also professing to be Christian.

And was changed to:

Witnesses identify themselves as Christians, but do not accept the Trinity doctrine as taught by the most Christian religions.

Besides, the awkwardness of the phrase “the most” in the new revision and it’s (unintended?) implications, it’s obvious that this editor took exception to the words “professing to be …” (I can’t imagine there’s a significant difference between “majority” and “most”, but maybe I’m missing something!)

Note that on 3 Dec 2004 155.232.250.19 tried out this revision: “… [JWs] do not accept the Trinity doctrine as taught by the majority of modern Christian religions.” This of course is not historically accurate, so it was quickly re-revised.

Suggestions/Possible Revisions for this particular sentence and comments:

  • 1. Leave it out entirely. This will never work because then the whole non-Trinitarian issue is not addressed.
Comment: Leave it out here, but draw attention to it later when discussing beliefs --JW-somewhere 12:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It already IS discussed later in the article under Beliefs and Doctrines. There is a more detailed explanation in the Doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses article under the subheadings Beliefs about God and Christology. There is even mention of JW's position in the Trinity article. In spite of this, many contributors have repeatedly and strongly insisted that some reference to the fact that JWs do not teach the Trinity doctrine be put in the intro. For quite a long time it was the first point made about JWs. Personally, I think it doesn't need to be mentioned in the intro, but that idea just won't fly here. --DannyMuse 17:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • 2. Leave it as it was. If JW’s require a disclaimer as to their status as Christians, then so should all other groups.
Comment: Don't think of it as a disclaimer. It is merely a classifier. Tom - Talk 17:49, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • 3. Leave it as revised by 155.232.250.19. Nah, see #2 above.
  • 4. Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, but do not accept the Trinity doctrine.
It’s short, sweet and to the point. But I doubt that individuals that believe JW’s are not Christians would/could leave it alone.
  • 5. Jehovah's Witnesses are Christians, but do not accept the Trinity doctrine taught by other Christian religions.
This is a contender!
Yes. Tom - Talk 17:49, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • 6. Jehovah's witnesses are non-trinitarian Christians
This was tried before as the initial statement in the intro. A few weeks back Tom suggested that it might work later in the intro in the position of the current sentence in question. Does anyone think this has legs?
JWs don't like it as definitve for them. Tom - Talk 17:49, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
I continue to think this compromise is closest to what would satisfy both the trinitarians and the JWs (and also nicely encyclopedically informative, via the wikilink on the term, "nontrinitarian" ). I just don't know what to do when closest isn't close enough. --Gary D 20:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • 7. [Your Suggested Revision Here!]

In the interim I revised the sentence to a hybrid of what it was and Suggested Revision #5 above.

Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christians, but do not accept the Trinity doctrine taught by other Christian religions.

Discussion on this subject is heartily welcomed! --DannyMuse 17:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm ok with how it was, and I liked the revisions by the anon. I don't understand the factual inaccuracy allegations you made twice above, but I don't like the "modern" qualifier. In short, I am happy with most all the suggestions; after all, I am not a JW and not a trinitarian. Hmm, so why am I putting in my two cents? Tom - Talk

Tom, you're funny! I like your sense of humor ... and your two cents. Here's some change: the second comment I made about an inaccurate edit had to do with the "modern" qualifier. That's obviously misleading. The first was that the recent Edit Summary didn't exactly describe the edit, but perhaps I'm just being overly picky. --DannyMuse 18:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Danny: I am uncertain about the veracity of the clause "...., but do not accept the Trinity doctrine taught by other Christian religions." ! It may be relevant to note that not all Christian religions teach the Trinity. i.e. all the following Christian groups reject the doctrine of the Trinity.

   * Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
   * Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scientists)
   * Remonstrant Brotherhood (Netherlands),
   * Oneness Pentecostals
   * Jehovah's Witnesses
   * Unification Church
   * Christadelphians
   * Iglesia ni Cristo
   * Polish Brethren
   * Doukhobors
   * Molokan
   * all Unitarian churches, worldwide.

e.g. Unitarian Universalist Christians, Unitarian Christian Church, Unitarian Brotherhood Church, etc.)Regards--JW-somewhere 12:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good point there JWS. I have been thinking about that. Perhaps it could read: "...., but do not accept the Trinity doctrine taught by most (or, the majority of) ?other? Christian religions." george 20:51, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To JW-somewhere: You're absolutely right. Which is why the sentence was:
Jehovah's Witnesses identify themselves as Christians, but do not accept the Trinity doctrine as taught by the majority of those also professing to be Christian.
I guess someone found the "also professing to be" phrase objectionable, but we'll never know as 155.232.250.19 did not bother to explain the reasons for removing it. In response to your comments, I've revised the intro to try out one of george's suggestions. BTW, as your suggestion #7 was a minor variation on #1, I moved your comments to just below it and added a reply. Thanks. --DannyMuse 17:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Danny. Thanks for noting and consequent addition of "most". My "talk" blurb regarding other non-trinitarian religions is now unnecessary. Shall delete it now that the matter has been rectified? Regards. --JW-somewhere 11:05, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)