This page is not a forum for general discussion about Serenity Prayer. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Serenity Prayer at the Reference desk.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religious texts ( defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Poetry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Has anyone ever made a claim to ownership or copyright of any version of the Serenity Prayer? I have read that Niebuhr never did, but of course the version purported to be his is different from the version put forth by today's 12-step programs.

This version of prayer is surely in the public domain, right?

   God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
   courage to change the things I can,
   and the wisdom to know the difference. 

Thanks for your attention, Bluerasberry ( talk) 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Under the DMCA, all work published in the US after 1923 is under copyright. As such, The Serenity Prayer is not in the Public Domain. jonathon ( talk) 20:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

I can find no evidence that Niebuhr was ever associated with the "Confessing Church" of German protestants during the Nazi era, nor the "Confessing Movement" of very conservative protestants here in the USA.

I find it interesting that the Serenity Prayer origin at Alcoholics Anonymous predates the claim here. Any comments? Rfrisbie ^talk 16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC) reply

I have now thoroughly documented the origin of the prayer. The earlier version of this page was an amazing mess of urban myth and total confusion. Some of it was even comic: the page included the demonstrably false claim that F. C. Oetinger wrote the prayer - and cited as an authority for this a German page that demonstrates that F. C. Oetinger did NOT write the prayer! (The editor who added this obviously was not able to understand the German page.) SerenityPrayer 14:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Olivia Newton-John's album "Stronger than Before" has a very nice extended version of the Serenity Prayer on the last track called "Serenity".

Have added it on the basis of this report. Macspaunday 16:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't know the origin of this, but..At our 12-step meeting we read the ENTIRE Serenity Prayer: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time, enjoying one moment at a time, accepting hardship as the pathway to peace. taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world as it is, not as I would have it. Trusting that He will make all things right if I surrender to His will. that I may be reasonably happy in this life and supremely happy with Him forever in the next. Amen Reinhold Neibuhr 1926

Everything after "the difference" is not by Niebuhr, but seems to have been added sometime after the prayer began circulating. The 1926 date is definitely wrong. The full story is in Elisabeth Sifton's book cited on the main page. Macspaunday 16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC) reply

The spurious accounts section describes Boethius as a "stoic philosopher." Stoic should be capitalized, but I don't believe Boethius was a Stoic. The Wikipedia article on Boethius describes him as a Christian philosopher. rkharrison

Quite right. Done. Macspaunday 18:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Maybe he was just very stoic. After all, he did stick to his faith in the face of death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.21.221 ( talk) 16:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I found this here http://skdesigns.com/internet/articles/prose/niebuhr/serenity_prayer/

Where they talk about many people researching this, but they have references to books, etc. about the prayer and that his 'daughter' even has the 'full prayer' on a page in her book.

I was wondering if you guys could look into this and see if any of this may be needed or added to the article.

Thanks much! Ariyen ( talk) 12:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC) reply

There seemed to me to be some inconsisteny in the article as it attributed the prayer to Niebuhr AND stated that Niebuhr attributed it to others (though without a solid reference being given) AND that there is evidence that it predated Niebuhr (the photos of the lodge and the Mother Goose "version"). I can find no mention of Dr Sasser and his photos (again, no reference is given) nor of The Grapevine in Wiki. I've also changed the word "spooking" to "spoken" as it is surely a typo!

I haven't tried to get to the bottom of this, but instead I have taken the easy way out and simply edited the structure of the article in a way that reflects the various possibilities and debunked claims presented. It was either that or delete the contradictory material which obviously I'm not in a position to do.

LookingGlass ( talk) 17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Raeding more closely the article is riven with this dispute, centering as it does on the 1950 article, for which I've provided a link. The result is that the SAME reference ends up being used as confirmation that the original was Niebuhr's AND that he himself says that it isn't. I'm trying to join the AA to get access to the articles and sort this out but at the moment it won't take my credit card!!!! Grrr 84.249.205.20 ( talk) 18:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The AA have now posted me both the articles. Niebuhr was in regular contact with the AA but the articles aren't a lot of help and I'm trying to get primary source data from them. I've added a bunch of other references including to the "alternative" theories and in particular regarding Dr Sasser. I've made enquiries of Cincinatti. There appears to have been a deliberate attempt to distort this article by truncating a quote of Niebuhr's. I have edited the article to contain the full quote and reorganised the text accordingly. Hopefully all this will at least give a reader an overview even if it remains a bit of a mess. If I get any more info I'll input it. I've also corrected the vague reference to the origin of the SP with AA from their own records.

LookingGlass ( talk) 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The Mother Goose version simply points out that the substance (but not the form) of the prayer has at least one literary parallel, which is unsurprising and doesn't diminish the interest of Niebuhr's version. It would be interesting to find others. -- Macrakis ( talk) 22:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Another literary parallel is found, perhaps more succinctly than the original in "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need" - this incompasses the immutability of inaccessible desires (and by implication, the need to accept this), and the need to step out and try sometimes anyway. Of course, it doesn't say much about wisdom, but wisdom has fallen out of favour these days anyway.

I wonder if the well-known spoof "Grant me the serenity to accept what I can't change, the courage to change what I can, and a big bag of gold"[citation needed] warrants a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.179.21.221 ( talk) 16:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

The article previously indicated that early usages were from women with no church affiliation, with the implication that such usages were distant from Niebuhr's circles. However, it then went on to say that the first known usage was by a woman who worked for the YWCA. Though the YWCA is not associated with any particular church within Christianity, it is an organization with strong religious ties (especially at that time) and the statement is thus misleading - doubly so since Niebuhr frequently lectured at the YWCA. I have removed the clause about no church affiliation for this reason; if someone wants to rewrite, clarify and replace it, I have no objection. hgilbert ( talk) 17:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree with taking it out. When I added the part about the YWCA/YMCA and Detroit, I did not want to give it undue weight by also removing the "no apparent church affiliation" statement from the previous edit. What that phrase actually means, I think, is that the prayer was being quoted in non-church contexts. Even that isn't entirely true, because one pre-1943 example was from a Sunday School column. Rose bartram ( talk) 12:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC) reply

It would be helpful to have a section documenting the secular versions. However, these cannot merely appear on blogs and websites, but should have appeared in print and achieved some formal recognition. In addition, we should be careful about terminology; the formulation is secular, not atheist, as they avoid the question of a deity rather than deny its existence.

Finally, as far as I can understand, any formulation that includes the word "Grant..." is implicitly calling upon a higher power. I'm open to alternatives here but can't see any off-hand.

The section should be re-written addressing these concerns - including verifiable references. hgilbert ( talk) 19:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I disagree that something needs to be in print or documented to be useful. These words of wisdom are not facts that can be verified, they are opinions and viewpoints, all of which have a place in a community built place. Insisting that they be documented and verified seems only to be a justification for leaving out the secular references. I have seen many sections in wikipedia and wikiquote of "unverified" references. I have no problem stating that the references have not "appeared in print and received some formal recognition" (whatever that is), but they need not be deleted simply based on that fact. If they are useful to people, why leave them out?

"should have appeared in print and achieved some formal recognition." It is my understanding from reading the wikipedia policies that this is not the standard for inclusion. For the many people struggling with recovery and other issues, these words are very useful. Rather than engaging in a constant edit/revert process, I am turning to the Meditation Cabal for assistance in resolving this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-09-04/Serenity_Prayer

Kenyonsf ( talk)14:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC) reply

User:Kenyonsf requested informal arbitration from WP:MEDCAB on this issue, specifically asking for a third opinion about the standards required for citing "words of wisdom". I have provided the requested opinion in the case here. I'll keep an eye on that page, and this page, to see if anyone has questions or would like further mediation on the topic. In a nutshell: Yes, citations are required; yes, the version most recently posted has issues; however, some previously rejected cited versions may be acceptable with relatively minor edits to the article. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 21:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC) reply

I have boldly deleted the "Pop Culture References" section, pursuant to the WP:IPC guidelines. All entries in that section failed the three-prong test of the guideline.

• Of the four references, only one cited a reference. That one exception cited IMDB, which is not considered a reliable source, because the trivia section has no editorial oversight.
• None of the references indicated that the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference—if that's even possible in this case.
• No real-world events have been established as occurring due to the references.

Any IPC references should be notable under the guideline; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and trivia such as "the prayer was said in this movie" does not belong in an encyclopedia article. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 15:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC) reply

It is mentioned in Slaughterhouse-Five. Is that notable? -- phocks ( talk) 12:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Quoting from WP:IPC:

"However, passing mentions in books, television or film dialogue or song lyrics should be included only when that mention's significance is itself demonstrated with secondary sources."

The fact that the Prayer is mentioned in a particular book is not, in and of itself, noteworthy. If, however, the book's use of the Prayer was so noteworthy that it was particularly mentioned in critical reviews or academic research regarding that book, then it might be considered noteworthy. Alternatively, if some notable real-world event occurred because of the reference to the Prayer in the book, and that connection is properly documented in secondary or tertiary sources, that might make it worth noting. // ⌘macwhiz ( talk) 21:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC) reply

Why is the extended version included at the top of the article without any mention of where that version came from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.164.210 ( talk) 04:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC) reply

The extended version seems to me to be very modern, and should be put into its own section, rather than looking like the original is a condensation. And there's no attribution. htom ( talk) 01:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Indeed the present presentation is rather biased. There is more than one extended version circulating. So why give this version this special status? It is surely not by Niebuhr. It should be cited later on and with reference. Imeanit ( talk) 13:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC) reply

Any chances that the prayer might have been used by Native Americans as a girlfriend of mine thought - my first encounter with it was a post-it on her wall quoting it as such. It started in that version with 'Great spirit' and not God. (It might have been used by Karl May in Winnetou, I guess, but it could come from Sitting Bull...)

It's the Cherokee Serenity Prayer according to the listing of 10 American Indian Prayers at http://www.manataka.org/page1449.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by PieterJansegers ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Is there any record of it being used by the Cherokees before it became known through Niebuhr? It has spread in many directions since the mid-1930s. hgilbert ( talk) 19:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC) reply

A recent edit changed

...Niebuhr wrote the prayer for use in a sermon, perhaps as early as 1934.

to

...Niebuhr included the prayer in written form in a sermon in 1943.

I am not sure what "included the prayer in written form" is supposed to mean. Does this mean that he had his own personal written notes? that the sermon was distributed in written form in 1943? The whole paragraph is rather unclear, but this passage is especially unclear.... -- Macrakis ( talk) 22:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC) reply

Where is the resemblance to Thomas More's prayer? Merely that the latter asks God's help to mend his ways? This is common to many prayers. hgilbert ( talk) 13:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Frequently used by ACA

God grant me the serenity to accept the people I cannot change,
Courage to change the one I can, and
Wisdom to know that that one is me.

This article is incoherent. It starts by stating that the earliest known written version of the Serenity Prayer was in 1943, then later refers to documentation back to 1936. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.3.19 ( talk) 02:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, documentation of oral versions. hgilbert ( talk) 02:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not quite sure what the significance is of the difference between printed versions that report on oral sermons and printed versions that don't explicitly refer to oral sermons but were results of oral sermons. The 1944 publication is, according to Elisabeth Sifton's inaccurate book, a reproduction of a 1943 oral sermon. My point is that the Wikipedia article starts out by following the inaccurate Sifton account, then later presents the factual documentation going back to 1936.

A more serious flaw in the article is in the second paragraph of the first section, where, introduced by the words "The original, attributed to Niebuhr," we find a mishmash of the much later "grace to accept with serenity" version preferred by Elisabeth Sifton and the much later "long version" that no serious historian of the Serenity Prayer associates with Niebuhr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.235.93 ( talk) 11:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Would it be prudent to denote earliest oral vs written examples of the prayer? Would that be more satisfactory to maintaining a coherent timeline? Not sure what can be done about the other issues raised. DaxSudo ( talk) 00:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The article as it stands now says that the version listed here is the "best-known form." I'd like to dispute that!

A Google search for "and the wisdom to know the difference" has 4.7 million hits, while a search for "and wisdom to know the difference" (no 'the') nets only 3,190,000 results. Which leads me to believe that the actual best-known version includes the 'the.' Kind of nitpicky, but I think it's worth changing. What do y'all think? Babylonian007 ( talk) 21:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC) reply

I almost always see this written as:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.

Only "serenity" is preceded by "the," which is odd. When spoken, in my experience, "courage" and "wisdom" are almost always also preceded by "the."

It is also worth noting that the AA book "Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions" contains a plural version with "we" and "us." (p. 125) Pilgrim144 ( talk) 07:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Years ago, I saw a wall hanging that added to the most-common form (approximately) "but grant me the determination to keep working toward what I believe is right, even if I believe it to be impossible". It seems to me that doesn't contradict the rest, because what is impossible for one person, may yet be possible when we act together! (I just wish I could find it again, because I'm sure this from-memory version is wordier.)

Another nice extension that I don't know the authorship of is: "Grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the Courage to change the things I can, and the Wisdom to know the difference; grant me Patience with the changes that take time, Appreciation of all that I have, Tolerance of those with different struggles, and the Strength to get up and try again, One Day at a Time." DPD fics&pics

The section is currently a mess thrown into a paragraph. Should I reorganize it into a bulleted list sorted by media type (i.e. song, book, movie, etc.), or is this against Wikipedia's guidelines? EpicWolverine ( talk) 19:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Go for it. HGilbert ( talk) 23:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC) reply

Done in this edit. EpicWolverine ( talk) 18:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC) reply

The attribution to Reinhold Niebuhr now appears to be solid, see the latest evidence from Fred Shapiro. I'm tied up over the next few days, but perhaps someone can edit the article accordingly. John M Baker ( talk) 21:45, 15 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Good catch! I've added some material, but the chronology needs reordering now. HGilbert ( talk) 02:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Since this is an unreferenced section that duplicates previous contents (that themselves contain references) in the same article, I am removing it. (I'll add a header to the relevant section so that it is clear such information exists). — Safety Cap ( talk) 15:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC) reply

>Take it to the talk page instead of edit warring.

Whose? Yours? Oh wait, it is locked. (Also: I should think that 'edit warring' is violation of 3RR, but what do I know.)

As I said, the Buddhist quote is not only irrelevant (because, as I said, it only recommends passivity, 'accept everything', as well as doesn't state the importance of *discriminating* what one can and cannot do, which is an integral part of the prayer and arguably the most important one), it is OR. The sources given in the Precursors section are primary, and don't state the correspondence between the prayer and the 'precursors'. Thus, it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.43.0.178 ( talk) 16:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

It seems a valid inclusion under Precursors, but without claiming it to be "similar," which is as you say unsourced. I have modified the text appropriately. HGilbert ( talk) 21:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

HGilbert's solution is acceptable to me. And anon 178, read WP:EW to discover that edit warring isn't exclusively defined as violation of 3RR. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 21:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Are there any verifiable sources on the authorship of Solomon ibn Gabirol? The References section lists "'Choice of Emeralds' (Chapter 17 'Consciousness' 2nd verse)" as source, but I cannot find any hint for the existence of a book by that name. Theuberger ( talk) 11:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

It's a mistake for "Choice of Pearls," which is probably ibn Gabirol's best-known work. This translation on Google Books uses a different translation: "Intellectual pre-eminence consists in discriminating between the probable and improbable, and being reconciled to the uncontrollable." However, the translation in our article is found in many places on the Internet, mostly without reference to the Serenity Prayer or our article, so it's likely from some published translation. John M Baker ( talk) 15:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hgilbert has added it on 10 August 2013, maybe he can advise about his source. -- FordPrefect42 ( talk) 16:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Disastrous not to note the original source of this citationwhen I first added this...I was doing research on the provenance of the prayer at the time and looked at many sources...feel free to update as needed. HGilbert ( talk) 17:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC) reply

I've changed "Choice of Emeralds" to "Choice of Pearls," but it would be nice to get a proper cite to the particular translation. John M Baker ( talk) 14:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC) reply

As much of the article was written at a time when there was considerable uncertainty about the prayer's authorship, an uncertainty that has now been laid to rest, I have extensively revised the corresponding sections to reflect the current situation. I hope that nothing important has been lost; please do improve on my attempt to bring this up to date! HGilbert ( talk) 13:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply

I did this bold deletion again this week (my bad for not using the talk page first) since it's reappeared at least twice, since User:Macwhiz removed it in 2010 and User:Hgilbert removed it again in 2014. I recommend any ideas on how to keep the page aligned with WP:IPC while accounting for the fact that less experienced editors (like me!) are likely to contribute unencyclopedic examples as laid out in WP:IPCEXAMPLES. Historical deletions: by Hgilbert at 11:09, 16 June 2014 and by Macwhiz at 09:40, 3 October 2010. Carlaxs ( talk) 17:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC) reply

The source for the Slaughterhouse 5 reference is the novel itself. That's common on Wikipedia. If it is clearly in the novel, we do not need someone telling us that it is in the novel. Have you looked at the novel?

I don't see a problem with the source for the Sinead O'Connor song. What is your objection, specifically? Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 17:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Carlaxs ( talk · contribs) is quite right. Any such mention requires independent verification of its significance. Otherwise every article on Wikipedia would be swamped by fanboy lists of the topic's occurrences. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 17:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I generally agree (which is why I did not restore most of the removals), except there are cases when pop culture references are acceptable, per WP:IPC. Are you denying that the it is in Slaughterhouse 5? If you do, we have an issue. If you don't, then there is no basis for objections. Content of novels and films do not require sources unless there is clear evidence that the information is incorrect, such as an editor's objection as to the accuracy. Sundayclose ( talk) 18:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I am not denying that it is in Slaughterhouse 5. The point is, we need a reliable independent source to verify that Vonnegut's use of it in his novel is of some literary significance and not just passing trivia. Specifically, although the content does not need to be verified here, its significance does. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 18:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Valid point. The literary significance can be determined by a reliable source or a consensus here. Sundayclose ( talk) 18:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the citation in the restored section. I think we are getting there now.— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

First, let me say that I am not sure that this is a significant exemplar of the prayer's usage in popular culture. Perhaps this entire mention should be removed.

If it is worth mentioning, at all, however, the citation is sufficient. We do not need to mention the author of the text which confirms that the prayer was used in Slaughterhouse Five, as the focus should be on the fact that the prayer is cited in the book. HGilbert ( talk) 21:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Hgilbert: As noted by Steelpillow, the citation is not provided as evidence that the prayer is in the novel; that is quite obvious. The citation provides evidence for literary significance, as requested by Steelpillow for good reasons. When you removed the mention of the literary critic in explaining use of the prayer in the novel to illustrate differences in perspective of fatalism, you stated that it is a fact, not an opinion, that such inclusion was Vonnegut's intention, not just a literary interpretation. Please tell us how you know that was Vonnegut's intention. Vonnegut did not provide such an explanation in the novel or elsewhere to my knowledge. It is Tony Tanner's interpretation of the novel. Sundayclose ( talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I must take the blame for removing the article comment about Tony Tanner, and on reflection his theory does need better context than I allowed it. I don't seem to be doing well here. However I also think that the bald statement of the prayer's inclusion, currently in the article as I write, does not adequately explain its significance: either we do this source justice or we delete the whole section. Could I suggest the following form:

Kurt Vonnegut included the prayer in his novel Slaughterhouse-Five. It has been suggested that this illustrated the contrast between character Billy Pilgrim's view and the Tralfamadorians' view of fatalism.[ref Tanner]

— Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I like the rewording but strongly recommend that this passage is more appropriate to the article on Slaughterhouse Five than to this article.

I hear a case being made that the prayer is significant for the novel (if a casual mention without any follow-up really counts as significant). I don't hear a case being made that the novel is in any way significant for the prayer, or for the prayer's history or effect on the world. (Evidence that the novel had, for example, spread awareness of the prayer, would be be grounds for its inclusion here.) From WP:Trivia: Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. HGilbert ( talk) 09:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Steelpillow's suggested rewording is certainly better than no reference at all to literary interpretation. But stylistically, active voice is much preferred to passive voice, which is why my change was "Literary critic Tony Tanner commented ...". My personal opinion is that not indicating the source as Tanner is needless quibbling and unnecessary. It is Tanner's interpretation, and I don't see the problem with attributing it to him. But at the very least, don't present it as "fact". As for Hgilbert's concern about whether this information should be included in the first place, that is an entirely different issue than the specific wording. It's a legitimate concern, but in this case it boils down to a matter of opinion. Some pop culture references are legitimate and allowed in Wikipedia articles. I don't see a problem if the significance is adequately sourced and we are not dealing with a lengthy list of unverified trivia. But, as I said, it's a matter of opinion. Let's see if others comment here. Sundayclose ( talk) 16:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Actually, I'm back to my previous opinion that if this is mentioned here at all, the fact that the prayer occurs in the novel is sufficient. Details about characters in a novel largely unrelated to the Serenity Prayer are totally out of place in this article. WP:IPC recommends not including "unremarkable mentions/appearances" HGilbert ( talk) 17:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I disagree based on the fact that literary significance must be verified to support the basis for inclusion as "pop culture". Otherwise the pop culture section becomes a WP:COATRACK and we end up with everyone putting his/her favorite incidental occurrence of the prayer in the article. Hundreds (maybe thousands) of novels, TV programs, movies etc. include or make reference to the prayer. All of those don't belong here, and the way we draw the line is to demonstrate the significance. If you want an example, look at the edit history of Lolita and the talk page discussions. Over the course of several years, dozens of references to the term "Lolita" were added to the article. Many have been removed, re-added, and removed again and again. Some verification of relevance and importance is needed. Simply stating that Slaughterhouse-Five includes the prayer is insufficient (and does not require a source); the literary significance is necessary, and that requires a source (or consensus). Sundayclose ( talk) 18:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I googled "serenity prayer" "slaughterhouse-five" and there is a fair amount of chatter about the connection. The longer comments seem focused on Vonnegut and his novel, while discussions of the prayer tend to mention Slaughterhouse-five only in passing. It's not a very impressive trawl, as most of it is blog posts with just the odd book here and there. (Susan Farrell's Critical Companion to Kurt Vonnegut: A Literary Reference to His Life and Work stands out as a reliable source.) All this suggests to me that Hgilbert is probably right in thinking the material does not really belong here after all, but rather at Slaughterhouse-Five if anywhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 19:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Honest differences of opinions. I suspect if the novel doesn't qualify for inclusion, no pop culture reference will. Let's wait awhile to see if anyone else comments. Sundayclose ( talk) 19:23, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

On second thought, this article probably doesn't get much traffic so it's unlikely there will be any more support for inclusion. If someone wants to remove the pop culture section I don't object. In the unlikely event that a consensus develops in the other direction it can always be added back. Sundayclose ( talk) 19:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

I appreciate your flexibility. I'll see if there's space for the connection at Slaughterhouse-Five. HGilbert ( talk) 21:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Done. HGilbert ( talk) 21:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Serenity Prayer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://www.almapress.unibo.it/dubcek/intro/intro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060503064333/http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/referate/theologie/oetgeb00.html to http://www.wlb-stuttgart.de/referate/theologie/oetgeb00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Can anyone explain the timeline:

• The preamble states "Niebuhr... used it ... as early as 1934"
• The Early history section states "The earliest recorded reference ... is a diary entry from 1932 ... attributing it to Niebuhr"
• A research ( http://ourspecial.net/misc/sereneoetinger.htm) points out a text in German on a building from 1849, and refers to a witness who has confirmed the German version as early as some time between 1920 and 1930.

The latter also alludes that Niebuhr father was a German pastor who highly likely was familiar with the German version of the text, and could have passed it to his son. While such statement is hard to verify the research provides another proof which is quite easy to verify: a quotation of Niebuhr himself printed in a journal the WP article recognises as a major and undisputable source (Grapevine, January 1950) as saying the prayer “might have been spooking about for years, perhaps centuries.”

How many centuries have passed after the alleged creation in the 1930's? Or should one accept that the alleged author was talking about centuries before he became familiar with the concept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.126.5.54 ( talk) 17:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC) reply

This article begins by stating "Niebuhr, who first wrote the prayer for a sermon at Heath Evangelical Union Church in Heath, Massachusetts, used it widely in sermons as early as 1934." Not a single word of that is true. The Heath sermon is firmly dated as 1943 by the Niebuhr family. Niebuhr may have originated the Serenity Prayer, but no one has ever found any evidence that he used it in sermons in the 1930s.

Read the citation given for the statement, which explains the discrepancy clearly. Clean Copy ^talk 15:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

I don't have to read the "citation given for the statement." I wrote that citation. Let me repeat: No one has ever found any evidence that Reinhold Niebuhr used the Serenity Prayer in sermons in the 1930s. Fred Shapiro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:101:8480:5D02:8135:118:AC01 ( talk) 12:35, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing out the misinterpretation of your article. I have made some minor changes to the text of the article to reflect what you say. Please feel free to improve the wording further. -- Macrakis ( talk) 00:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

Do we know when the name "Serenity Prayer" was first applied to this prayer? The earliest use of that name that I've found is in the A.A. Grapevine 12 (1955), p. 28 [1]. -- Macrakis ( talk) 00:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC) reply

This article is still a mess. It states that the earliest printed reference is from 1936, whereas in fact there are 6 known printed references from 1933. It states that Elisabeth Sifton was once quoted as saying the prayer originated in 1943, whereas in fact she maintained that false legend many, many times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:100:CA40:74FD:4C9C:F723:B731 ( talk) 12:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

In her book entitled "The Serenity Prayer," the daughter of Reinhold Niebuhr, Elisabeth Sifton, gives the prayer verbiage that she says is the first version. "God grant me the grace to accept with serenity those things which I cannot change," prayer continues similarly, with the last line saying to help me to "know the one from the other." As in the one(s) I "am able to change" and "those I am not able to change." In a moment of serendipity, I stood in front of the book several years ago in the public library in Metairie, Louisiana. I am grateful for discovering this treasure. All versions of our beloved Serenity Pray are valid & useful, especially in Al-Anon and Alcoholics Anonymous, twelve-step recovery programs. Gina Randazzo 6/4/2022 I do not know the format to include a copy of the book cover or of the prayer included in the book. This is a link to the book- will edit: the-serenity-prayer-faith-and-politics-in-times-of-peace-and-war_elisabeth-sifton/432821/#edition=3503467&idiq=279593 2600:100D:B155:3A33:6890:D3D8:24CB:84C4 ( talk) 17:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply

I am a novice editor. I apologize if I run afoul of rules or norms which are better known by those with substantial experience.

I write because, as I read the entry, there seems to be an emphasis on discounting the Prayer's philosophical forerunners.

Specifically, there are two sections addressing incorrect attributions of the prayer ("Mistaken dating and attribution" and "Spurious attributions") which happen to sandwich the "Precursors" section. Both of these sections assert "various" false attributions, though without persuasive citations.

Furthermore, it appears that someone has gone through the "Precursors" section and appended "non-primary source needed" to all but one of the examples. I understand the rule requiring non-primary sources to address the problem of errant editors drawing and presenting unverified, untrue, or fringe inferences from the primary sources. Here, however, the texts are direct quotations from the cited primary sources. The lone "inference" in the section is the assertion "Numerous statements of more or less similar sentiments by other authors have been identified. These include: ..." Hardly seems like a dangerous sentence to me.

I certainly understand that the specific language of the Serenity Prayer--as well as its title--cannot be fairly attributed to the authors mentioned in "Precursors," but it seems relevant to include these authors' writings as antecedents of the philosophical ideas which comprise the Prayer.

I found it conspicuous that the authors who were discounted are all non-Christian. (At least, they do not write as Christian theologians or clergy.) Because my interpretation may be affected by my own bias, I submit this topic for your consideration. SouthpawSF ( talk) 21:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Good question!

Primary sources are certainly sufficient to affirm that the individuals quoted said what is quoted. Given their very different wording, however, what justifies considering any of these quotes a genuine antecedent of Niebuhr's formulation? We rely on notable secondary sources to justify this.

As for your perception of bias: every supposed precursor is flagged for further citations, regardless of religious orientation. One Christian source (Schiller) is flagged with an absolutely identical request for non-primary source, while the other is flagged differently, I think because of the text's wording, but is still flagged. 17:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)