Talk:Robert Brinsmead

Recent edits

Thank-you to the two users who made substantial recent edits. The material is quite helpful overall, however I would like to point you to some Wikipedia policies which describe important improvements. Please write in a neutral point of view (see the policy WP:NPOV), and provide citations from respected sources, which is particularly important for controversial-sounding statements (see WP:CITE). Statements such as "SDA leadership was so frightened of him in his final year of college that they chose to deny him his diploma and disfellowship him..." do not use neutral language, and a disputable-sounding statement such as this one needs a good reference.

On another note, a statement which got deleted read, "Robert left in 1957 due to theological controversy. He never returned there to complete his formal education." If the 1957 date is accurate, the article would benefit by having it reinserted, preferably with a citation.

On a more personal note (and now I'm bending the policies a little...), Bob's journey through life is a fascinating one, and I'm sure you're both very interested for one reason or another. I think I saw him at Avondale College in 2006, but I didn't really know who he was at the time. Colin MacLaurin 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, please write only a brief summary in the introductions, with successive levels of expansion afterward (Wikipedia:Summary style may be the policy on this). Colin MacLaurin 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Colin MacLaurin and William Ferguson:

I would be interested in working collaboratively with either or both of you to make this entry both comprehensive and accurate. What might be a useful way for us to contact one another directly for this purpose?

I have tried to use a more descriptive, not a promotional, voice in my contributions. My expertise is in the history and theology from the mid-1960s through about 1980. Corrections appreciated.

Doug0531 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Doug, thanks for wanting to work collaboratively. I think article-related discussion is best done on this talk page. The talk page is where editors discuss what should go in the article, and controversial parts can be discussed, hopefully a consensus reached, and then material be added to the article. You can email me from my user page (link on the left hand side), or discuss on our user talk pages; however I think discussing on this page would be best. Reserve emails etc. for private, non-Wikipedia related discussion (actually I would be interested in your private point of view if you did want to email me, although ideally this should not affect your editing or mine); and discuss how to improve the article here. Colin MacLaurin 12:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks, Colin, for your response. I did a lot of research and other tasks for Robert Brinsmead between 1975 and 1979. My name is on the masthead of Present Truth/Verdict from September 1976 until August 1979, first as Research Director and then Research Consultant. That portion of this effort for which I have much first-hand knowledge I have written or edited to be concise, reasonably objective, and with a more neutral posture toward what is claimed. Much of two sections, on the 1960s and the 1970s, is my contribution (and I freely acknowledge it needs expansion).

I did the research for "1844 Re-examined." Brinsmead didn't simply "reject the investigative judgment," as is currently stated (someone changed what I wrote). I am not overstating when I wrote that he systematically dismantled the theological rationale for the denomination's claim to its unique calling. The "Investigative Judgment" entry notes 1844 Re-examined," but it does not socially locate it, nor did it attempt to respond theologically. It was not a peripheral document in its day, though denominational authority tended to avoid its place and presence in the conflict that came to a head at Glacier View.

The statement as it is now written is, of course, narrowly correct. But it vastly understates the impact of his thinking and influence in this matter. Taken together with the Glacier View travesty and Walter Rea's "The White Lie," many hundreds of ministers (I remember a number bandied around in those days - 2500 to 2700 - but I cannot verify that) and thousands of lay people left the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I believe the ministers in Australia who left numbered in the hundreds. I did not follow these matters much after 1982, so I cannot comment on events after that.

From what I can gather, it seems that William Ferguson (and perhaps others) have constructed the major narrative to date on Brinsmead's current beliefs. The "voice" of this portion is much too uncritical, and to my thinking it is much too promotional. There are some sweeping generalizations that seem unwarranted. "Environmental science should be as brave" comes across as smarmy scolding for environmental science's assumed fundamentalist bent (the narrative uncritically infers that environmental science is a monolith -- someone in that field will read this some day and wryly smile before moving on). Also, some of the narrative reads like an insider's comments for other insiders. Referring to Robert Brinsmead as Bob is a case in point. And whether or not Jack Zwemer (I corrected Zwemer -- Someone spelled his name with two m's) has ironically captured some element of Mr. Brinsmead's current thinking ("Brinsmead remains unsure whether this is a compliment from Jack or not") sounds too insider-ish. Further, with reference to the purpose of this overall entry, the claim is somewhat beside the point, even if it can be attributed. I have not made much effort to edit this section. I would rather that be done by those who are its architects.

I am not particularly well versed in how to edit Wikipedia entries, and I do appreciate every effort of yours to make this entry flow well. And I would be most interested in hearing from William Ferguson. I am pleased to be part of something that clarifies Mr. Brinsmead's past and present thinking. Doug0531 03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Doug, thanks for your willingness and openness to engage in discussion on the talk page - that's an important sign of a good editor. I have added welcome messages to your and Wmferguson's talk pages, which list a few helpful guidelines. Apparently you are very well informed about Robert Brinsmead; hence, it's great to have your contributions. However that does lead to another policy: Wikipedia:No original research. One paragraph entitled "Citing oneself" currently states,

"This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of their research in a reliable publication, they may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest."

It is the more controversial statements or those which sound more dubious which particularly need to be cited. There is currently a lot of such "original research" in the article.

---

I am not precisely sure about how you see the Original Research guideline fitting into what I have contributed thus far. So, permit me to tighten things up a bit, and then feel free to adjust as necessary.

Concerning "1844 Re-Examined": I spent three months gathering all of the materials for what came to be "1844 Re-examined." I did this with no thought to an outcome. As I remember the event in 1979 (here's a bit of trivia, simply FYI), two eight-foot long folding tables were set end-to-end in a conference room in the Fallbrook CA office. I arranged the material in sequence, according to content, extending in one direction for sixteen feet, and then I rounded the end of the table and laid out the rest on the other side, again for sixteen feet. Then I set a chair for Mr. Brinsmead at the beginning. He read and made notes, moving his chair from stack to stack. The writing and conclusions are his, not mine. The mechanics of how this process occurred is not important for the article. I include it here only FYI.

Also, I made a claim in the 1970s section that the interests of PT/Verdict gradually expanded into areas of theology and biblical studies that moved beyond SDA concerns. By that I meant, say, the issues on the covenantal structure of the Hebrew Scriptures (PT, late 1976), as well as the eschatological nature of the NT gospel vis a vis the historical structure of the OT. I never remembered SDA back then to engage scripture for much other than apologetics to buttress SDA distinctives. Perhaps this or that theologian did, but at its heart the denomination did not. That was my point. Is there perhaps a simpler way to say that? Doug0531 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For example, my quote from Schwarz in the opening sentences. It was not presented as absolute truth, but rather "Schwarz said..." or similar. Schwarz is a respected authority on Adventist history, so he was a good one to quote. Of course, often there will be different significant opinions from different notable authorities, so just include all the major points of view and in proportion. (WP:NPOV) -Colin MacLaurin

• Good work Wmferguson, with adding references to many places where it was requested. -Colin MacLaurin

More replies

Regarding PT/Verdict moving beyond "parochial" Adventist concerns. I made some changes, because the word "parochial" for example can have a non-neutral connotation of "old fashioned" or "outdated" or similar (I am not assuming you necessarily meant it this way). A refinement would be to say, "expanded into areas not often examined by scholars of the time", however this would certainly need a good reference. If PT claims this, I would make a comment in the article, "PT claimed...", because it is not an independent reference.

Doug0531 said,

"Brinsmead didn't simply "reject the investigative judgment," as is currently stated (someone changed what I wrote). I am not overstating when I wrote that he systematically dismantled the theological rationale for the denomination's claim to its unique calling. The "Investigative Judgment" entry notes "1844 Re-examined," but it does not socially locate it, nor did it attempt to respond theologically. It was not a peripheral document in its day, though denominational authority tended to avoid its place and presence in the conflict that came to a head at Glacier View."

You basically want to say that it was a major document. This would be a helpful and informative comment. However the article cannot claim that 1844 Re-Examined, "systematically dismantled the theological rationale...", because many notable sources (e.g. the ATS, BRI) would disagree. Much research went into it, but this is not a helpful statement either. Wikipedia is not about so-called "truth", but rather what various different experts have considered to be "truth". Find a (preferably independent) published reference by a reputable person who commented on the impact it had in the church. I think this is a better way - comment on what effects it precipitated. Perhaps you could quote somebody as saying (in their opinion) it was well argued.

You mentioned the investigative judgment article for example doesn't do justice to this. Please, be bold and improve that article! Colin MacLaurin 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant parochial as a descriptor, not as a perjorative. I don't mind that you say it another way, so as to avoid an unwarranted negative connotation. And concerning my comments on dismantling, and your reply to them, it is possible that you simply missed that I have already further adjusted that brief section.

My expanded comments in "talk" are not intended for inclusion into the main body, but merely to provide background. And, fret not thyself that I am in this to promote "truth." The Wikipedia medium is useful up to a point, but only so, because narratives and events from thirty years ago are, by definition, filtered through personal and social history and retrospective impressions (i.e. filters) of recall. Be that as it may, I think I found a way to say something that is accurate and doesn't overstate for the purposes of this entry. Your comments on my recent redactions are welcome.

Colin, in no way to I mean to diminish anything of your effort. Really, you impress me as a good thinker. You had to live through those years to somewhat understand the paranoia. To some Brinsmead was the risk of smallpox on a free blanket. I remember in 1966, at Atlantic Union College (Herbert Douglas was President of AUC then), being admonished to only whisper his name, or to avoid his name all together. And during the Glacier View activity, discrediting Desmond Ford would have been easier if someone could provide even a shred of evidence that he collaborated with Brinsmead. For some, accusations were enough. "Report, and we will report it." Unwarranted reactivity was part of the emotional overlay of the times, and no attributions are really possible except anecdotally. Who would admit to being afraid of a man's name forty years ago? Who would do that? Doug0531 11:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice improvement regarding 1844 Re-Examined - neutral tone. If you wanted to add force to the statement, you might comment (preferably with a good reference) on the effect it had within the church. Good job, Colin MacLaurin 14:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC) Aah yes, I think Raymond Cottrell wrote something of that (or similar) era of Adventism - controversial stuff! (Article "Investigative judgment: Asset or liability" or something - I have cited it a few times on Wikipedia). Perhaps he has written regarding Brinsmead. Colin MacLaurin 14:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality changes

I have tried to reorganize the article so that the material is not repeated twice in two "biography" sections. I have also deleted some clearly non-neutral statements, and added lots of "citation needed" and "disputable" statements. The ones I have added "disputable" to are for extraordinary claims - not necessarily incorrect in my assessment, but ones that certainly need a reference, like the ones about Ford being given messages that Brinsmead was chosen by God or something. Colin MacLaurin 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I started making some edits to paragraph 4 of the current views section. However, the more I read the paragraph, the more I find it difficult to distinguish between Brinsmead's views and those of the paragraph writer. The tone is more like a homily than an explication of Brinsmead's views. Any material in this paragraph or the others in this section that cannot be reported and documented as representing Mr. Brinsmead's views should be taken out. I am hesitant to add any more "according to Brinsmead" type language when I don't know if this indeed represents his thinking. Is there no written or recorded documentation of what Brinsmead currently thinks? If so, a brief summary of that, well referenced, would seem appropriate. Otherwise, this section does not belong in a reference document. --Chazann 02:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Images

The images were useful ones. Would the editor who added them please inform us where they took the images from? We may be able to use them in the article. For example, if the Avondale College one was a photo you took yourself, you can release it into the public domain and then use it in this article. The business award one may not be legitimately used here, however please say where you got it from, e.g. a website or something, and we will see what the copyright status is. Colin MacLaurin 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have emailed Ferguson regarding photos. Colin MacLaurin 09:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Please help with the chronological order. I have tried to keep the text coherent and in order, but need to help of editors more knowledgeable about Brinsmead. Particularly, some of the "later views" tidbits (such as reading Luther) probably belong in the 1970s (evangelical) section. Also, when did he become involved in politics? Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

All references to studying Luther and Calvin belong in the 1970s section. Doug0531 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

• Is Qua Ngo's website the official one for Brinsmead? Please clarify the status/relationship between the two. Personally, I would like to see the website itself claiming something like this, but am prepared to accept your word about it if answered here. Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

From my read of the site, Qua Ngo seems to be a play on words, or an insiders comment. I am not aware that there is one official web site for Brinsmead's current thinking. This site's "Ekklesia" section is copyrighted by William Ferguson. Also, http://www.worldviewpublications.org, is published by Norman Jarnes. It contains extensive material that seems to deeply echo Mr. Brinsmead's current thinking. Little is attributed, however. Norman Jarnes was Editor of Present Truth/Verdict back in the day. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I kept and improved the Qua Ngo website, as it seems helpful. Ironically, I was the one who added it when I wrote the original article, because it turned up after a Google search. Technically external links should be to authoritative figures in the subject area, and this is dubious for Qua Ngo as I have never heard of him; however perhaps one could argue an archive of articles has nothing to do with Ngo's notability. Also adding Worldview Publications for now. Colin MacLaurin 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that "Qua" and "Ngo" run together equal "quango," i.e. the web site address. It is likely that this is not a person but merely a clever-ish way to represent the site. Doug0531 01:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• "Wall of Division" quote. I've never heard of this supposed Adventist belief, and so have deleted it. If anyone wishes to replace it, please give a good reason and good reference. Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"Wall of Division" is a phrase found here: http://www.quango.net/brinsmead/shorthis.htm. /boq/ The United Church of God split from the Worldwide Church of God in May 1995 when the Worldwide Church of God declared that the Sabbath was not "THE SIGN" or "The Wall of Division" of who is a Christian and who is not. /eoq/ It is the last sentence in "A Short History of How Robert Brinsmead's Writings Helped Transform the Worldwide Church of God." The author is William Ferguson. Insofar as the phrase is used as a descriptor in that 1995 context, it could be useful. Since Mr. Ferguson is knowledgeable in Worldwide Church of God matters, he would be my choice to edit this in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug0531 (talk • contribs) 14:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC) My bad. Forgot to sign. Doug0531 19:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the origin of that phrase. It appears to be a WWCoG term, so please make that clear in the article. A reference to a report from that church would be better than quoting Ferguson (incidentally, I recall reading Ferguson's article myself). Colin MacLaurin 13:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Schwarz quote about most troublesome dissident movement. Need to update this reference with a post-1980 (Glacier View controversy regarding Des Ford and the investigative judgment) viewpoint. As I recall Schwarz has updated the book. Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Can't help you here. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment about extensive theological library. Actually, I thought he donated it all (or perhaps most of it) to Avondale College quite recently. Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I helped build the library for Mr. Brinsmead's work in the 1970s. I do not know where it might be now. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• "rough and tumble experience in Adventism". This tone does not seem neutral to me, or at least requires a citation. Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• The "current beliefs" section is strongly non-neutral, and needs to be revised boldly as soon as possible. Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the section that I believe Mr. Ferguson mostly wrote. I look to him (or others) to revise this. It is very important for the overall entry. I can help with style. I leave to others to provide content. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just a note of trivia for my future reference. I hope Doug0531 does not mind that I recovered a comment of his on this page: "For the sake of historical accuracy, the linking of these events [Walter Rea, etc. -Col] to the rise of what I shall call the left wing of Adventism ("Spectrum" etc.) is a work that deserves some careful effort. But that is not mine to do." If good references can be located, this would be good content to add to articles such as progressive Adventist perhaps - in fact I welcome the present editors very warmly to contribute to that article, as I suspect you are far more knowledgeable about it than me, and so far I have been the primary contributor to it. Colin MacLaurin 10:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Information supplied by Ferguson and Brinsmead's niece

I just read the website about the compiled emails regarding Valorie's passing, which I notice also has a lot of other details which were incorporated into this page. Brinsmead's niece provided the information. There are many statements there which need a better reference - presumably she is not considered a notable authority (other than being his niece, of course). Editors with a "Deletionist" philosophy would probably reject all this information, but I would be content for now with putting a "According to Brinsmead's niece, ..." ahead of some of the large claims made, e.g. Ford being inspired about Brinsmead. It is not a great source, and hopefully someone will read the BRI resources or anything else with more notability and cite that stuff. Colin MacLaurin 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What web site? URL please. Doug0531 00:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.quango.net/verdict/Valorie-Brinsmead-RIP.htm, which I have already used as a (admittedly not strong) reference, "piped" as "Archived emails regarding Valorie Brinsmead's passing from quango.net" in the References section. Colin MacLaurin 09:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I consider personal communication between Mr. Brinsmead's niece and Mr. Ferguson to be an adequate (though anecdotal) reference for early RDB history on the quality and quantity of his education in the 1950s. Because issues around grades and graduation are essentially straight-up biographical, I would support their inclusion. (The e-mails suggest that Mr. Ferguson continues to observe the evolution of this Wikipedia entry.) Desmond Ford is still around. He can verify or not the claims concerning himself in this matter. As one interested in clarifying the historical portions of this entry, perhaps you could e-mail him and ask clarification. Your removal (i.e. distance) from the primary events might contribute to stimulating his response. Doug0531 11:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)