Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses/Archive 8

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:
 * Dedicated and aggressive door-to-door proselytizing
 * Non-observance of birthdays, Christmas, Easter, and patriotic holidays
 * Non-observance of patriotic ceremony (pledge of allegiance in the United States)
 * Special translation of the Bible
 * Refusal of blood transfusions
 * Among Christians, Jws are also known for the following:
 * Denial of the divinity of Jesus as God the Son
 * Denial of salvation in heaven for all but the 144,000.
 * Belief in soul sleep; denial of a spirit world
 * To the suspicious or more closely interested, JWs are also known for
 * Worldwide uniformity of practice and doctrine
 * 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 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)