Talk:Unity Church/Archive 1

Blatant Vandalism

I deleted the insertions of what seem to be evangelical Christian tracts into the article, because they rang of vandalism and were completely irrelevant to the article itself. Secos5 01:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

EDIT

Whoops, someone already beat me to it. Oh, well. Thanks alot, whoever did it. Secos5 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

QUESTION

I came to wikipedia because I wanted to know why it is widely felt in NYC that Unity Church is somewhat of a cult. It would be great if there were more elaboration on how society have accepted this religion or church.

There doesn't appear to be a whole lot. Most people have never heard of the church, and it's only extreme Fundamentalists who consider it a cult, groups that also consider Seventh-day Adventists to be cultists, as well, simply because they don't worship on Sunday. --Scottandrewhutchins 23:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OTC, any knowledgeable Christian knows Unity =is= a cult because of their defective Christology which rejects the orthodox Biblical teaching that Jesus was the God-man or Theanthropos, from the Greek Theos or god, and Anthropos, or man. He was fully God and fully man at the same time. That is where all cults go wrong; their view of the eternal divinity of Jesus Christ.

Actually no one in any branch of New Thought Religious Science or Divine Science disputes Jesus' Divinity. We believe as Jesus when he invoked the 82:6 Psalm ye are Gods and children of the most High....Jesus' invocation of each persons true divinity.74.73.176.161 (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Unorthodxy or heresy is not the same thing as a cult. They are not orthodox Christians, it is not so clear whether they are a cult.131.238.31.40 (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

PS- HOW DO YOU CONTEST THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE. IT IS SO POV IT'S NOT FUNNY.....

Nirigihimu 16:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Unity is a cult"=POV; "defective Christology"=POV--Scottandrewhutchins 17:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

ACTUALLY unity is not a cult, it was up until about 1996, only because of its lack of followers was it considered a cult. Do you forget that the Mormon religion was considered a cult, and it has no defective christology. I have been to unity, and trust me the 'cult' label could not be applied more wrongly -Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.166.24 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you believe the Wikipedia article called Cult, it's almost a characteristic of the term that it's debatable whether or not a given group falls within the definition. --Alvestrand (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the pathological elements of a religious movement (assuming that they ever were there in the first place) that give some legitimacy to the label "cult" are generally due to, and very seldom outlast, their charismatic, authoritarian founders (which likewise pathological movements seldom outlast), applying it to a long-established movement is cause for considerable skepticism. It generally amounts to little more than a fevered accusation from a more orthodox position of "heresy!". The problem being that in Christianity, the heresies actually predate the orthodoxy -- and it was not uncommon for the defenders of the proto-orthodoxy to have some of their ideas (or even themselves) later rejected as "heretical". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you tell the minister of a Unity church that you're leaving, they'll say that they're sorry you feel that way and politely ask if there is any particular reason. If you tell a Catholic priest that you're leaving the church, you get all sorts of warnings, told to fear Hell, and so forth. If we're going to define one of thse two movements as a cult, the Catholic church does far more to keep members in than the Unity church, and the Unity church never resorts to intimidation. If a minister in Unity were doing that, they'd lose their charter with the Association of Unity Churches.

The sorts of "heresies" found in Unity date back to the beginnings of Christianity, and the rediscovery of interpretations that got people killed by zealous orthodoxists. If anything, it is the orthodoxy that has a lot more to answer for than the heretics. Orthodox Christianity is basically a cult around Jesus started by Paul, whereas in Unity, while we do not dismiss Paul outright, is based primarily on the teachings of Jesus like those in the Sermon on the Mount. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Words from Unity

This was a public-service announcement made in the 1970s with various celebrities expounding on the meaning of a word; it always began "The word is..." These were usually shown late at night to fill broadcast time, for many years after they were made. For many years, it was probably the thing that most people who had heard of it associated with Unity Village. Could someone who knows more add something about this to the article?  ProhibitOnions  ^(T) 23:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

As a broadcaster, I have encountered these. They would be some point of their version of the truth, like that positive-thinking neural pathway rerouting business, slickly produced into "Public Service Anouncements". Stations typically receive a network feed at night and are given so many minutes and seconds for station identification, and local advertisements. If you cannot fill that space with commercials or a live person doing something, you use what is available. It originally seemed harmless to use Unity materials, but promoting cults, or religion in general is not what secular broadcasters do, so we gave up in about 1991....HTH Nirigihimu 16:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, why give them free airtime? Still, they were well enough known that we probably ought to mention this in the article, so if you can remember anything about it, go ahead. The list of celebrities probably includes a few of these. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 11:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Unity is not a cult as defined by any objective, secular comparative religion program at any reputable university's definition of the word. Any claim that it is a cult comes from organizations that could be claimed as a cult by other organizations using their own, non-objective criteria. If I were being non-objective, I could rightfully argue that Southern Baptists are a cult. Being objective, I could not, and neither could one say that about Unity, as one can say that objectively about, say Branch Davidians.--Scottandrewhutchins 17:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify: I hold no opinion as to whether they are a cult or not. I was simply agreeing with Nirigihimu that religious organizations shouldn't necessarily get free airtime. I suppose I should also mention that it was due to these PDA-like broadcasts that I myself came to learn of the organization many years ago, so their free publicity must have worked somehow. Regards, ProhibitOnions ^(T) 17:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Secular broadcasters" broadcast church services every Sunday morning from various local and national churches. What is the difference? - 13:41, 23 May 2008 --132.228.195.207 (talk) 17:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Unity's Divisions

I would like to hear more about the current schisms within the Unity organization. I would like to hear from some ministers about their alignment or embrace of "alternative" philosophies - such as the teachings of Abraham and other "new age" ideas. I am increasingly concerned that Unity has been coopted by many individual beliefs and lost much of its core identity. As a point of departure I would define a cult as a religious movement with novel ideas and beliefs and a sect as a traditional religious movement (Mormons) with specific separate beliefs - polygamy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jettparmer (talk • contribs) 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

You define "cult" wrongly by the standards of the academic study of comparative religion. A "cult" is a group that clusters around a person as as a charismatic center. Unity is not a cult because it is based on ideas and principles, not worship of a person. Also, even by your definition, Unity is a sect, because its ideas come directly from the Bible, often from verses the leadership in mainstream churches like to ignore or explain away such as John 10:34 and John 14:12 in order to have power over people. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have attended several Unity churches and am not aware of any schisms. Where did you hear about "schisms"? laurap414 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any "schisms". I know that the Association checks up on ministers to make sure that they're teaching Unity and not some other metaphysical teaching and erroneously calling it "Unity". --Scottandrewhutchins 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In the southwest, there are some schisms. It really all depends ont he minister, I have been to six different unity churches in the southwest, and four of them were different in teaching. Not tremendously, but some were actually more orthodox christian then others. -Z

Cleanup Links?

I would suggest winnowing down the links to ALL of the Unity churches at the end of the article to a select few, at present it's kind of overwhelming. Any ideas? laurap414 00:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

How about the top ten? Count unity of phoenix in! I'm pretty sure were #5 (size wise) Or maybe just the top one per region? (i.e. southwest northwest) -Z —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.166.24 (talk) 07:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Christianity and Neutral POV

An anonymous user keeps deleting that Unity involves Christianity, even though Christianity is part of the official name of the church, and one of its foundational texts titled Christian Healing. I think this one needs a ruling. I think striking out the Christian references is a violation of WP:NPOV. the anonuymous user appears to be involved in Unity based on the comments. I have been a member of Unity for 27 years, and it seems only recently that individuals in the church have made a concerted effort to distance it from Christianity. Fundamentalists routinely do. Either way, it seems to be a POV violation. --Scottandrewhutchins 18:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the offical name of the Church Unity Church or just Unity . I have no doubt The publishing branch uses Christinity in it name. It has its roots firmly planted and is closely associated to Christianity, but has moved and continues to evolve and grow which include new ideas hence New Thought. Which is reflective in how the Course in Miracals has been embraced by many in Unity. I wish to embrace all of Unity, which includes ideas outside of the Christian mainstream. Its roots also includes Ideas frimly planted in the New Thought movement what I wish to bring is balance and a honest dialogue. A balanced point of view.And by the way when some one changes or amends the artical and you don't agree with it does not mean VANDALISM. You are a partner with others in this endeavor, just as Unity teaches let's be inclusive.JGG59 18:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A balanced point of view would not seek to eliminate Christianity from the dialogue, either. The Fillmores did not approve of the non-Christian nature of overall New Thought. Therefore, Unity needs to be discussed as both part of New Thought and as part of Christianity, since it does not fit neatly in either one, yet is part of both movements. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Fillmores are no longer here and you can see the Church continues to grow and change and include ideas they might not agree with. They them selfs included ideas which are not really Christian in origin. It fits neatly in New Thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.232.156 (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

although some churches do not use a bible at all

Tagged for citation requirement. This would not be an orthodox approach in the Unity church. Massive Bible training is required of Unity ministers and Licensed Teachers. Will remove if a strong citation is not found within a week. --Scottandrewhutchins 14:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Category: Christian denominations

Please see the pamphlet, "Unity: Denominational or Non-Denominational" and stop removing the category. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

denomintions

New Thought churchs associate which Christianity to different degrees. Unity the most,but hard pressed to call them a Christian denomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.147.185 (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, please see the pamphlet, "Unity: Denominational or Non-Denominational" and stop removing the category. --Scottandrewhutchins 04:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Unity is a New Thought Christian church"--pamphlet from Unity of Indianapolis.--Scottandrewhutchins 20:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just for your 411 this an Encyclopedia, Third party references should be the norm not the organizations PR. (That means any article on Weki) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.111.91 (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Unity writers

Moved notable writers to notable writers list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.52.86 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Writers , church and centers list

Great idea, I have started to add some names of Churchs and Centers to the list.

New Information

When adding to the article. New information should pe placed in the proper categories. Principles, History ect... An intro is just that an intro, not a new article. I will be reorganizing. Please feel free to help with the proper placement of text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGG59 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Weak language that approximates that Unity is "kinda sorta like a Christian church" (yes, I exaggerate some of the recent edits...but not by much) does not belong in the introduction. The intro needs to be concise, and hit the major points -- think "elevator pitch." Example major points: Unity is absolutely based on the Bible, and that belongs in the intro. Unity is absolutely Christian (and without any apologies or hedging), and that belongs in the intro. If someone feels otherwise, feel free to discuss it here. Please sign your entries via the signature button, so that we can all follow the dialogue. Thanks. --24.28.6.209 22:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral POV

Neutral POV showing Unity's connection to both Christianity and New Thought. The intro has the informatiom it needs without being misleading. It is clear and to the point. The reader can discern for themselves from the article what Unity's beliefs are. First of all you should follow your own advice about a disscussion. This is an Enyclopedia and should have a NPOV. Thanks. JGG59

Your edits are full of misspellings, grammatical errors, and a substantial lack of understanding of the subject. It is nonsense to assert that Christianity is somehow separate from New Thought (it is not), or that the Bible is not central to Unity (it is). The name of Unity's ministerial school is in fact the "Unity School of Christianity." Please make a better effort at making more-informed and higher quality edits. --71.42.142.238 12:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

To shift into educational mode, please calm down, take a deep breath, and do some reading before editing this article again, JGG59. Unity's FAQ may be helpful to you, it is located here. Regarding the fact that Unity is Bible-based, the following is quoted from Unity's website:

• "What is the role of the Bible in Unity? The Bible is Unity’s basic textbook. Scripture comes alive when it is understood as a clear and helpful guide for today’s experiences."

Let's both work toward making this a better article. More citations, such as the above, would be a step in the right direction. I respect your spiritual beliefs, whatever they may be, but let's focus on the facts regarding Unity in this article. Peace. --71.42.142.238 12:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok the article is all yours, I guess there is only one point of view yours, (which is not neutral) I never claimed the Bible is not a central text. Also I wanted to show the roots of Unity in New Thought and Christianity, your tone and manner remind me of someone else on this site and article hmmmmmmm..... Thank you for being so Christian about it . JGG

I edit from IP addresses, and that's perfectly OK, JGG. Please keep your citations focused on Unity, as that's what this article is about. Using Bartleby's as a reference for New Thought is fine for the New Thought article, but does not add value here in this article on Unity. --71.42.142.238 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

JGG has a good point, IP 71, and i wish you would heed it:

New Thought is not inherently Christian, nor even inherently religious. From a non-Christian religious perspective, there was a large influence by Swami Vivekenanda, especially on the West Coast New Thought denominations like House of Truth. On the non-denominational side, we see writers like William Walker Atkinson writing and researching Hindu yoga and writing very credible books on the subject.

I think that if you think that all of New Thought is solely Christian, you are mistaken and need to read a few history books and then ask around among your contemporaries OUTSIDE of Unity. Remember, Unity is not the only New Thought denomination, and denominational New Thopught is not the only form of New Thought.

Sincerely, cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 06:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add a more inclusive intro honoring both Chritianity and New Thought and Unity's place in both NPOV. Also take down the Christian template which I think is misleading and maybe include the God template which includes New Thought and Christinity, discussion I hope thats okJGG59 12:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Please use thrid party references. Links to the orgs. themselves should be listed as external links not within the article. Thanks.66.108.111.91 02:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are obviously vandalizing this page. The citations have merit, and are from an authoritative source. Stop what you're doing immediately, or I will see to it that you are blocked.--24.28.6.209 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all I am not the only one editing this page. Stop thinking this is your article. Get a grip we can all work together. Not everyone will agree how things should look. This is a work in progress it is an Encyclopedia.66.108.111.91 03:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting valid citations and tags such as Christianity, and stop deleting the fact that Unity is Bible-based as supported by the citation. You may also stop referring to Unity's website as somehow being "POV" -- it's the subject of the article, and quite valid for encyclopedic purposes, and demonstrates that you are the one pushing a baseless, uncited POV. --24.28.6.209 03:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

User, IP 24, it is against Wikiedia good form to repeatedly link to a topic's own web site as a reference within the article. One external link is all that is necessary. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 06:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Unity Church

Please don't revert others' edits without discussion. It's obvious there's a disagreement here, but discuss it - and PROVIDE RELIABLE SOURCES - on the talk page, don't simply re-revert additions. If nothing else, that will get you blocked for WP:3RR. --Alvestrand 06:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I and others have been accused of being a vandals. The only reason, is there are a few who do not want this article touched. They have one point of view. See what would happen if you put a critism section? I have not crticized it. The few who keep calling others vandals have never used the talk page until after the fact and to call other edits vadalism. They accuse others of the very thing they are doing. It is hard to have a discussion when only one side is talking. I would like to say I'm sorry for my petty behavior.151.202.182.100 13:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandals -- now blocked -- have made identical, anti-Bible, and anti-Chrisitian edits exactly such as you have, 151.202.182.100. The reason they were determined by Wikipedia Administrators as being vandal IPs is because they were deleting characteristics, tags and citations...exactly as you have just done. Fair warning: your edits are consistent with previous vandals on Unity Church. The well-cited "Bible-based" and "Christian" labels for Unity will not be taken down, as this is central to Unity teachings as can be verified on Unity's website. You do not get to choose what Unity is or claims to be...Unity does. --71.42.142.238 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

(using consistent indentation) One special thing about this edit war is that both sides of the edit war are choosing to be identified by their IP address. It is more common to see one or more IP addresses used by a vandal, and one or more named accounts reverting the edits. I recommend that the people involved get themselves an account, so that when one person argues a point, it is easy to verify that it is indeed one person saying it. (Note that sock puppet accounts are fairly easy to detect, and not proper Wikipedia behaviour....) --Alvestrand 16:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made edits on this page and have been attacked. Never a discussion. Even when you reference or add links. They never discuss. They come out swinging revert your edits and and call you a vandal.JGG59 18:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the pot calling the kettle "black" here, JGG59. Even now, you're not discussing your most recent edits, nor are you using citations. I'll help you out this one time, but please be more thorough in the future: JGG59's edits regarding "Unity School of Christianity" being now known as something else are correct, and this can be confirmed via Unity's website. Unity now simply refers to the ministerial school as "Unity Institute." [1]--71.42.142.238 19:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to UnityHeritage.org, which provides a historical insight (and the writer's opinion) as to the restructuring at Unity. --71.42.142.238 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources problem

This article has a serious problem according to Wikipedia policy: It seems only to report on what the Unity (church, school) says about itself.

The criteria for reliable sources includes that they should NOT be affiliated with the subject of the article under discussion. Can anyone supplement the article with what others are saying about Unity? --Alvestrand 06:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

As i understand it, Alverstrand, the Unity people have long controlled this page and are alarmed that other people are attempting to edit it.

I have run across JGG before, editing in New Thought, faith healing, and related pages (you can check my contributions page for a further list of where we've both been working) -- and even though we had a bit of a set-to when we first met, our working relationship quickly turned into one of mutual respect and has become quite positive for us both, i think. I can say from experience that although JGG is not the best speller or the most code-savvy editor i have known at Wikipedia, his or her knowledge of New Thought is built on many solid decades in the denominational wing of the movement. I come from the non-denominational side and have found JGG's information and perspective on New Thought denominations to be accurate, helpful, and wise -- and well worth the time it takes to fix up his or her small spelling and coding errors.

As for the anonymous IP block editors -- well, if they don't think enough of their work to get a distinctive user name, they can hardly expect me to be be troubled to tell one of them from another. IP numbers are, to me, like a long line of small black ants -- i know that each is an individual, but i'll be darned if i can tell exactly how they differ. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode 07:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The IP-hopping vandals (66.108.111.91 24.215.255.192) -- as found-so by a Wikipedia Administrator, are apparently one and the same as JGG, whose edits are atrocious and rarely use citations. She/he uses the same language/style, and often the same misspellings (e.g., "artical") as the vandals. She/he also does not discuss edits and work out a consensus. I do not agree with Catherineronwode at all. Sorry for the fact, but there it is. --71.42.142.238 14:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alvestrand: Other sources of info are fine and dandy, but, using your logic, the Catholic Church could not be quoted for what it actually says...only what other people say about it. Both types of sources are obviously required. --71.42.142.238 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Alvestrand: You've substantially misquoted both the content and intent of reliable sources. Here, factually, is Wikipedia's official position on this:

1. "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings. It can refer to 1) the piece of work that is being cited, 2) the creator of the work (the author or artist), and 3) the publisher or location where it is to be found (a website, book, album or painting). All three can affect the reliability of the work. Portions of this page use "source" exclusively in the first sense for the sake of clarity, but that does not limit the scope of this guideline."
2. "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

So, there it is...Alvestrand's interpretation is wildly off the mark of truth. --71.42.142.238 14:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I was pointing to the wrong page. The one I was looking for was WP:SELFPUB, part of WP:V (a core Wikipedia policy) which says, in part, "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as.....the article is not based primarily on such sources." My apologies; I should have checked first that I was pointing to the right page. --Alvestrand 18:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unity Church and Unity School: One organization or two?

I see the following statement in the intro:

Unity, also known as Unity Church or Unity School of Christianity...

Yet the pointed-to article seems to draw a strong distinction between "unity(r), formerly known as Unity School" and "the association of Unity churches"; I'd say that it even documents a conflict between them.

The rest of the article seems to be about the church, not the school; it mentions the school only in passing, much as an article on the Roman Catholic Church might mention its largest theological institutes of education. So what is the argument for including it in the introduction? --Alvestrand 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

As that historical citation makes fairly clear, the former Unity School of Christianity (now "Unity Institute"...though the stone facade out front still says "Unity School of Christianity" (thus providing one point of the confusion)) is a function within "Unity." Technically, there is no "Unity Church" anymore per se...just "Unity." The Wikipedia article should in fact be retitled as such. The citation is quite useful in pulling all of this together; if there's a better one in terms of providing the evolution of Unity's recent history and restructuring, please feel free to provide it.

However, the Association of Unity Churches is effectively a separate marketing arm of Unity concepts that supports individual churches, and does not lie within the same entity such as Unity Institute does within Unity. From the previous "About Us" type link:

• The relationship between the two organizations is one of harmony and cooperation. The common goal of both organizations is to help people the world over to realize their divine potential, thus providing a means of growth for the entire Unity movement.

• While Unity is dedicated to teaching the practical Truths of Jesus Christ as a modern-day way of life, the Association of Unity Churches is dedicated to supporting and strengthening its member ministries by providing human resources, administrative, and educational programs.

The technically correct answer to the question at the top of this thread is: Neither -- There is no "Unity Church" and there is no "Unity School". The relevant entity is "Unity" (formerly "Unity Church") within which resides "Unity Institute" (formerly "Unity School of Christianity"). The "Association of Unity Churches" is a separate but cooperative organization.

Yes...it is indeed confusing. But the citation should definitely remain...it's one of the few sources that actually explains what's going on. --24.28.6.209 04:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.... 24, I fully agree that the link should remain in the article - and should be formatted into a proper reference, so that it appears in the reference list. But not necessarily in the introduction - the text you wrote above explains the situation better than the article currently does - do you think you could format the same information and references as needed, and insert it as a new section within the article? I'd suggest a section name like "Unity church organizational structures" or something like that. --Alvestrand 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That seems like overkill. Instead, I've simply moved that citation to the Reference section. --24.28.6.209 13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not to retitle article as "Unity"

I move that this article should be retitled "Unity," as that is the actual name of the subject at hand. "Unity Church", as such, is a historical term only. A disambiguation link for the term "Unity" already exists, and will require related minor edits. --24.28.6.209 21:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the page probably needs to be "Unity (school)" or "Unity (religious organization)" or some other disambiguator. After reading the intro-linked article, I'm still not sure what category to use for "unity(r)". --Alvestrand 23:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll offer the notion that unity^®, while technically a 501(c)(3) non-profit-corporate-entity-religious-organization, is at its core a "school of thought," much like Buddhism is arguably both a "religion" and a set of "teachings to guide one to directly experiencing reality." As such, unity^® merits being put in the "Religious faiths, traditions, and movements" category, just as Buddhism is. So that's what I've just done in an inclusive manner (i.e., not deleting other categories). --71.42.142.238 16:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like a Wikipedia article to be about one subject, not several - at the moment, we have the school of thought, the 501(c)(3) and the association. Most examples of the term "school of thought" are associated with more than one organization ("Buddhism" applies to a number of different branches, each of which is associated with multiple, independent organzations); in this case, I'd like to have the article be about the organizational entity (entities). --Alvestrand 17:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea to start at the beginning: there is no "Unity Church", which is the title of this article. --71.42.142.238 19:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So what do you think of renaming it to "Unity (religious organization)", as I suggested a few lines earlier? --Alvestrand 19:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the 2nd and last entries here: I'm in favor of the style that exists elsewhere on Wikipedia wherein the title is simply "Unity" followed by a lower-case, normal-font, italicized entry that says words to the effect of:

"This article refers to unity^®, the religious organization. For other uses, see Unity (disambiguation)."

It'd be fine if the disambiguation page says literally "Unity (religious organization)".

Similar entry: "Intel" goes directly to intel^® corporation. --24.28.6.209 21:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Intel page does not include the "^®". --Scottandrewhutchins 13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Point well taken. --24.28.6.209 02:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Technology point: The first line (above "From Wikipedka, the free encyclopedia") is the article title, which is an unique identifier for this article within Wikipedia. After that, we can make the page look almost any way we want to, but following WP:MOS is a good idea.

Opinion point: I have no doubt that "Unity" as a page title alone will remain the disambiguation page; "Unity (r)" is, after all, a very minor part of all the different usages of this word. So the article title of this article, if we want to drop the "church" part, must be "Unity (something)". --Alvestrand 19:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"Unity (school of thought)" makes the most sense to me. It is not a church, per se. Yes, they train ministers, but there is no hierarchial structure such as one would find with most other churches. Unity-trained ministers conduct their ministry without any overarching direction or requirements from Unity. As a second choice, "Unity^®" would work, with it being labelled as a religious school of thought in the amplifying remarks.

For the record, I don't agree with the POV assertion that "Unity is a very minor part of all the different usages," and the facts don't support that as well. Clearly, there are a lot of other uses, but I don't see anything that compares to Unity's 2 million members in terms of breadth. --24.28.6.209 11:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting: What's the source for claiming 2 million members? (That would be members of the congregations of the Association, wouldn't it?) That number isn't quoted in the article, just that it is "the largest". --Alvestrand (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Association of Unity Churches is effectively a marketing arm for participating Unity churches. Members of Unity churches (congregants) follow the "lighthouse" religious teachings of unity^®...not the Association of Unity Churches, which has no religious teachings, per se. The "members" of the Association of Unity churches are figuratively the churches themselves, who use it for administratively for marketing material, networking, etc. --24.28.6.209 (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's how I expected the combination to operate. But still - what's the reference for the claim of 2 million members? --Alvestrand (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Search is over -- and the official entity is...(drumroll)....

The only legal, trademark-holding, official corporate entity via the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is:

• Unity School of Christianity, Corporation, 1901 N.W. Blue Parkway, Unity Village, Missouri 64065

This legal entity is the sole, current owner and registrant of the following relevant trademark serial numbers and names:

1. (73413312) Daily Word (link)
2. (73413313) Unity (link)
3. (74278592) Silent Unity (link)
4. (75401277) Unity House (link)
5. (76105321) Unity Magazine (link)
6. (78882284) Unity Institute (link)

That's not to dismiss the fact that Unity School of Christianity refers to itself in an umbrella fashion as "unity^®," as we should here. This is perfectly legal; it is commonly and legally referred to as Doing Business As. All the other registered trademarks are simply aspects of unity^®'s religious activities.

The above registrations can be verified by searching the USPTO site with the following specific criteria:

• (live)[LD] AND (unity school)[ALL]

P.S. To confirm: There is no such entity as "Unity Church."

--24.28.6.209 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget that "Association of Unity churches" is a word mark owned by "Association of Unity Churches, Inc. CORPORATION GEORGIA P.O. Box 610 Lee's Summit MISSOURI 64063". Search: (association of unity churches)[OW]. --Alvestrand 19:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is well-established. The Association of Unity Churches is a completely separate entity from Unity. The relationship of the other entities was much less clear. --24.28.6.209 11:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edtors

I'm tired of pretending that the IP-addressed editors represent a bunch of people.

From here on out, I'm calling them "Yankee" and "Texan".

At the moment, Yankee is placing "notability" and "unreferenced" tags on the article. I'm reverting them until he explains himself. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability

I draw editors attention to WP:NOTE, which states:

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

• "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.
• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
• "Sources," defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.

A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article.

No "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has been demonstrated for this article, therefore a notability-template is perfectly legitimate unless and until such sources are found. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One problem with the name of the (whateveritis) is that it's hard to google for. Still, some things are easy to find:

• One book about Unity [2] (I don't know if that satisifies the requirements for "unaffiliated", however)
• One recent news story about one of the Unity churches: [3]

Disclaimer: I know nothing about Unity Church except what I learned from reading this article and following references.. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Neal Vahle appears to be a serious historian, so providing citations in the article to his book would go a long way to establishing notability. The Ocala.com piece doesn't really give any significant coverage of the Unity Church, it just covers a land deal. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced sections

The 'Overview of Unity' & 'History' sections were very poorly sourced. I have pruned them down to the few sourced statements & am moving the mostly-unsourced sections here (for later reinclusion if the can be sourced):

Overview of Unity

Unity espouses ‘practical Christianity in which its followers study ways to apply the teachings of Jesus to their daily lives. Through these teachings, Unity followers believe that God is a universal presence and divinity exists in all people.

Unity interprets the Bible and other major scriptures metaphysically. Unity students believe that the teachings of the Bible are allegorical lessons from which spiritual and metaphysical truths are obtained. For example, the twelve disciples each symbolize one of twelve spiritual powers that man possesses. Unity endorses the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible and recommends against the New International Version as advancing a literal, Fundamentalist point of view, but does not expressly forbid its use.

Unity's approach to affirmative prayer remains consistent with the Biblical interpretations that are expressed in Charles Fillmore's book Teach Us to Pray:

"Paul said, "Pray without ceasing." Do not supplicate and beg God to give you what you need, but realize, affirm, and absolutely know that your supreme mind is functioning right now in God-Mind itself and that your thought substance and the spiritual substance of the Most High are amalgamated and blended into one perfect whole that is now being made manifest in the very thing you are asking for."

As thinking is believed to affect our reality, positive thinking is another important tenet in Unity. "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours" (Mark 11:22-24) is interpreted to mean that what one believes is what one receives, and that if one holds a belief that is not what one wants, one is, in effect,affirmative praying for what one does not want.

Meditation also plays a significant role in New Thought. Followers of Unity rely on both prayer and meditation as vehicles for communicating with God and becoming spiritually centered.

Along with its churches and groups, Unity publishes a monthly magazine, Daily Word, the oldest continually published daily inspirational magazine in the United States. Unity has operated a prayer ministry called Silent Unity which has been in operation for more than 100 years. Silent Unity maintains a 24-hour-a-day prayer vigil, with staff available at all times to accept prayer requests by phone, fax, letter, e-mail or via the Unity website. Consistent with the core beliefs of Unity, the magazine and prayer ministry are available to people of all faiths; Unity considers itself to have both denominational aspects and non-denominational aspects, and believes that all people pray to the one God.

Unity also distinguishes itself from the more traditional churches in its basic approach to sacraments. Elaborate rites and symbols are absent from Unity churches. Communion, baptism and other rituals are relatively sparse with more emphasis placed on the spiritual over the symbolic (i.e. water in baptism). Unity sometimes uses rose petals or sacred oils for baptism, instead of water.

Fundamentalist critics of Unity, such as Probe Ministries, claim that Unity's belief in reincarnation makes it anti-Christian; however, there is no mention of reincarnation in the pamphlet "What Unity Teaches." The concept was endorsed by Fillmore, as well as by such Unity writers as Ernest C. Wilson and James Dillet Freeman (who argue that there is textual implication that Jesus was aware of, but did not discourage, belief in the concept), but it is not and has never been a basic teaching of Unity, and certainly not a "tenet" as Probe claims, as Unity does not subscribe to creeds.

History

Unity’s beginnings date to its founding by the Fillmores, who were much focused on personal healing. Charles Fillmore, a real estate salesman, and his schoolteacher wife Myrtle were living in Kansas City, Missouri when she faced tuberculosis. Myrtle Fillmore studied spiritual healing in 1886. She attended lectures by Dr. E.B. Weeks, a student of Christian Science.

By 1888, her health improved as she began to pray with positive affirmation for her health - “I am a child of God, and therefore I do not inherit sickness.” Charles Fillmore was affected by Myrtle’s newfound philosophy when his leg, withered from a childhood ice skating accident, grew stronger. He joined his wife on a mission to spread a message of teaching practical Christianity. Charles, having previously studied world philosophies, began researching the connection between religion and science.

Their first endeavor was publishing Modern Thought magazine (currently published under the name Unity) in 1889. They created the Society of Silent Help in the following year. This group prayed for those who requested it. This is widely considered the birth of the ‘Unity movement.’ Charles officially adopted the name Unity in 1891, renaming their society the Society of Silent Unity.

Dr. Harriett Emilie Cady, a former homeopathist wrote Unity’s first and seminal text, Lessons in Truth in 1894. Her writing became a cornerstone of Unity’s teachings.

Although the Fillmores never intended for their Unity to become a denomination, the Unity Society of Practical Christianity was organized in Kansas City in 1903. The church is now known simply as Unity.

Eleven years later, the Fillmores started two separate components to organize their functions. Unity School of Christianity handled publishing and teaching. The Unity Society of Practical Christianity took over church responsibilities. The Unity headquarters in downtown Kansas City gradually expanded into a church, publishing company and popular vegetarian restaurant.

Sensing the need for more land, Charles Fillmore purchased 58 acres (235,000 m²) of land in Jackson County, Missouri. In 1919, Fillmore developed Unity Farm for Unity’s eventual new center.

Unity Church debuted ‘Daily Word’ magazine in 1924 under the name ‘Unity Daily Word’ with Frank Whitney as its first editor. This magazine printed daily inspirational messages in each monthly issue.

While their movement grew, the Fillmores saw their teachings being used in unauthorized ways. To prevent further compromise of their message, they created the Unity Annual Conference. This organization of Unity ministers and spiritual leaders were responsible for guiding the Unity message and supervising the churches. In keeping with this edict the Fillmores withdrew from International New Thought Alliance in (1922) on the grounds some of New Thought organizations and denominations who belonged to the INTA , did not accept the primacy of Jesus as Master Teacher. Unity has since rejoined the INTA and is a active member.

Myrtle Fillmore died in 1931 and Charles Fillmore retired as minister of the Unity Church in 1933. Charles continued his work in travels and lectures.

In 1947, Unity School moved to its new headquarters at its Unity Farm site between Lee's Summit, Missouri and Kansas City Missouri. Beginning as a locally renowned produce farm, the site expanded and incorporated as Unity Village, Missouri in 1953. Today, the campus is 1400 acres (5.7 km²) and is open to the public.

Although Charles Fillmore died in 1948, his son Lowell assumed leadership of Unity and continued his parents’ work. Over the years, Unity School of Christianity hosted spiritual retreats, organized continuing education programs and expanded Unity’s message to other countries. In 1966, the Association of Unity Churches was formed to support Unity ministers and churches.

Celebrities affiliated with Unity include Betty White, Eleanor Powell, Wally Amos, Licensed Unity Teacher Ruth Warrick, Barbara Billingsley, Matt Hoverman, Patricia Neal, Holmes Osborne, Esther Williams.

Today, Unity School’s mission continues at the Unity Institute at Unity Village. The Association of Unity Churches, located in Lee's Summit, Missouri, oversees the denominational aspects of over 900 member churches. Youth of Unity's conferences and rallies gather together teenagers of the movement from all over the world.

There are over 900 churches and study groups. Unity claims to have over two million followers in 15 countries.

[End of removed material Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Sources

Hrafn, are you applying the "each and every sentence needs citations" rule here? Or is it OK to restore them if someone can say "this is a paraphrase of the history given in (enter source here)", and place appropriate ref tags on the whole section? --Alvestrand (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not each sentence, but each paragraph (and particularly each quote) should have a citation specific enough to enable it to be verified (i.e. specific URL or page number, not just a whole website or book), and should cover all the points made in it. Incidentally the paragraph you just restored contains a statement (that "the Bible is Unity's basic textbook") that is directly contradicted by the one solid reference we have (Vahle) & a quote that Google can find nowhere but in this article. Avoiding these sort of problems is why we have WP:V & why we need to take it seriously. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, WP:LEADs normally don't require citations, because they should be merely summarising facts stated & cited in the body of the article (this does not apply to quotes, which always require citations). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem with that. I'm routinely reverting the deletions of our New York-based anonymous editor, who seems to want to remove the claim that Unity Church is a Christian denomination without discussing it on this talk page. The Bible claim is one that Unity makes itself - see [4]; that's not an independent source. What does Vahle have to say about it? --Alvestrand (talk) 08:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In his chapter on H. Emilie Cady , he describes Lessons in Truth as "the most widely read book on the Unity teachings since the beginning of the Unity movement", and that it "contained what was to become the core of Unity teaching."[5] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Another good souce is Charles S. Braden's Spirits in Rebellion: The Rise and Development of New Thought, which will confirm most of what has been on hre before the page was ridiculously foreshortened. Braden's study is essentially neutral, published by Southern Methodist University Press. The author does not endorse any of the faiths presented, not does he paint any in an unfavorable light. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I have so far learned of Unity (still learning), apparently their teaching is all about a different interpretation of the Bible. No matter what other texts are used to accomplish this exegesis, the Unity School of Christianity could not exist without the Bible as its authorative text. I believe it is very correct to agree with Unity's self-declared statement that "The Bible is Unity’s basic textbook."[6]. Your excellent quotes about "Lessons in Truth" (LIT) actually support this. As quoted, LIT is a "...book on the Unity Teachings..." (emphasis mine) so while it may have become the central text to understanding what Unity teaches, it cannot be the core of the teaching itself since the teaching preceded the book. Furthermore, a cursory examination reveals two significant items: (1) The original 1920 title of the book is "Lessons in Truth: A Course of Twelve Lessons in Practical Christianity" and the back cover blurb describing the book's contents begins "Inspired by the Bible...". (2) The book has biblical citations on almost every page and spends most of its time helping the reader to understand the Unity perspective/interpretation of biblical scriptures. Thus the LIT book could not exist without the Bible. Last, but definitely not least, in chapter 16 of Vahle's book almost every criticism aimed at Unity concerns matters of how Unity interprets the Bible. Based on all of this I support Alvestrand's inclusion of the Bible claim. Low Sea (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This goes to demonstrate the need for Secondary sources to interpret the relationship between UC, LiT & the Bible. If you can draw this from Vahle, well and good, but we can't just baldly include these apparently contradictory statements without confusing readers -- we need to also provide reliably sourced interpretation to show how they fit together. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

New RS added (Columbia Encyclopedia)

I have added a very reliable source but I leave it to the primary editors of this article to incorporate this reference into the text as appropriate. Low Sea (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have moved it into the EL section. I leave it to you to demonstrate that it actually verifies anything, by creating inline citations to it. It is a very short article, so of very limited use for this purpose. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If I understand your comments correctly you have effectively reverted my edit because of (A) citation formatting/style issues and (B) disputed value of the source I provided. Respectfully I disagree for the following reasons...

On the latter issue of disputed value or "limited use" :

1. Size of the source is a non-issue. The text in most real world encyclopedia articles is brief.
2. The information is certainly from a source that qualifies as WP:V and WP:RS (what is more encyclopedic than an mainstream encyclopedia?) and as such, when added to the other existing (admittedly 1st party/less reliable) sources allows this article to become WP:N under the WP:SELFPUB guidelines.
3. Based on the text in the source I see direct reliable 3rd party support for existing statements within the current Unity Church page as follows:

• • identifies the official names of the church and organization.
  • establishes the names of the founders of the church.
  • establishes a key historical date which in turn verifies the minimal age of the church.
  • establishes the relationship of the church to New Thought and to Christian Science.
  • confirms the church's position that it considers itself a Christian denomination.
  • provides a brief description of some of the church's teachings.

On the former issue of citation style I believe my request for assistance from editors who are more qualified SMEs in correcting that issue should have been sufficient. Even though my style was not best practice, the fact that I was providing data that added value to this article and thus to Wikipedia itself was enough. Before the revert another editor had already stepped up and cleaned up a technical issue with the citation (Thank you Alvestrand!). Had the citation been left in place for a few days there is a good chance that the inline references issue would have been resolved in typical "many hands" Wikipedia style. Low Sea (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Per your (1) & (2): WP:NOTE specifically requires "significant coverage". A 107-word (excluding references), single-paragraph article does not count as "significant". Likewise the maximum amount of material that a source can verify is proportional to the amount of material that the source itself contains.
• The sole date contained in the source, 1891, is not mentioned in the article. Therefore this date does not verify anything in the article.
• The article likewise makes no mention of "the relationship of the church to New Thought and to Christian Science".
• My position remains "cite it or lose it" -- if you are too lazy to back up your assertion that this source contains relevant information to verify this article by providing specific citations to it, then I don't see why you should expect others to do your work for you. The material in this source is very brief and very general, so Subject Matter Experts are in no way necessary for such work.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(Inserting an indent here - following subject seems a bit different) - according to Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, an encyclopedia is considered a tertiary source. It's still worth referring to, in my opinion - especially since it's independent of Wikipedia, and available online, unlike our two noted secondary sources (Vahle and the book Scottandrewhutchins noted). --Alvestrand (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I think splitting the two is the best option , making a references section AND a notes section. following WP:TRITE.Mion (talk) 14:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

for notes we have Wikipedia:Footnote3#endnote_NumberedRefnone instead of using the reflist template, and under references that book is already mentioned under notes point.3, that looks double. Mion (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the "footnote section says what book and what page, references section contains the bibliographic details of the book" style of references. But I'm in a Wikipedia minority on this, it seems. (BTW, I couldn't find anything about this subject in WP:TRITE) --Alvestrand (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer it when the article has a large number of references to different pages in a single book (which is what I was anticipating would happen with Vahle, as the only significant 3rd party source to date on the subject), as it cuts down on the duplication of bibliographic information. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Category-Subcategory Duplicate removal

I recently removed some overcats and my edits were reverted. Here is my explanation for their removal.

New Thought churches is a more specific subcategory of New Thought movement.

Since an article is not supposed to be duplicated in both a category and a more specific subcategory, New Thought movement should be removed.

Christian denominations is a more specific subcategory of Religious faiths, traditions, and movements.

Since an article is not supposed to be duplicated in both a category and a more specific subcategory, Religious faiths, traditions, and movements should be removed.

--Editor2020 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Unity Church/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

It strikes me as being incomplete in terms of comprehensiveness. "Bleeding chunks" one might say, in need of more material to round it out and establish the church's importance. --Scottandrewhutchins 19:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 16:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)