Talk:Branch Davidians

Archives
Siege Archive: discussions of content since moved to Waco Siege

Relation of VTH to SDA

I just wanted to say that V.T.H. did not leave the SDA church,he was kicked out.

Eirra 20:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Yes, he was. He fell in love with an underage girl, and the church didn't support their marriage. So he got kicked out for being a bad example.

BTW, just FYI, Adventists do not 'Excommunicate', they 'Disfellowship'. It is the belief of the church that they cannot control the communication between man and god and that man is fallible, therefore the only recourse against those felt to be in violation of orthodoxy is for them to be removed from the roles of the church, ie, 'disfellowshipped'. This has no force other than removing the membership.

Removing pointless or bad links...

I'm going through each site, and removing them as I find them irrelevant or pointless. DoomBringer 9 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)

Can anyone go through the "The Warfare of Vernon Howell (a.k.a. David Koresh) and others against the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists" link and tell me if it's worthwhile? It is truly massive, and seems to be written by a Branch Davidian or whatever... so I doubt it's accuracy or validity. I can't be bothered to read the 40 pages of text (probably interlaced with bible verses...) DoomBringer 9 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)

This attitude will never serve to eliminate the POV problems with the article. Salty Kid | talk 18:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's Rise Above the Smoke and Mirrors

While I agree that the article needs a major overhaul, it must be done to truly reflect the 4 opposing views of the matter. Those 4 are: (1) The followers of David Koresh; (2) The Government; (3) The Branch Davidians who did not go with David Koresh in his unique faction but who followed George Roden for a while; and (4) The Branch Davidians who did not go with David Koresh in his unique faction but remained with Lois Roden.

Though but few understand the true distinction between the various factions which may be known by the name Branch Davidian, the very fact that the Koreshians lost their bid in 2000 to gain legal title to Mt. Carmel Center due to the efforts of one Lois Roden's followers, proves that there is more to this matter than what most people commonly understand. With all due respect to DoomBringer, the very fact that he/she (?) says, "I can't be bothered to read the 40 pages of text (probably interlaced with bible verses)" about the link he/she feels needs to be removed shows that there are people who don't care to know any more than what they already presume to be true. This attitude seems contrary to the Wiki principle which is stated as being "audi alteram partem," meaning "hear the other side or hear both sides."

Also, DoomBringer's reluctance to read the Warfare article because it may contain "bible verses" also shows a prejudice which surely must effect his/her evaluation of its worth. After all, the article is about a religious group, so one might well expect any link that provides a discussion on the matter to involve discussions on Bible verses. The article on Mormons contains links to things written by the Mormons and which contain Bible verses. The same is true of the article about Jehovah's Witnesses, and probably most every other article on any religious group (Bible based or otherwise).

What is lacking from the article are the facts concerning how the Seventh Day Adventists, in general, and the original Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, in particular, are viewed by the other churches, and how this has (or may have) affected the portrayal of the events in this matter. That is, anyone who has a general knowledge of the Adventist doctrine knows that the general Protestant and Catholic churches are quite antagonistic to the Adventists because the Adventists say they are wrong in keeping Sunday instead of Saturday as the Sabbath. I have noticed in other articles which concern such controversies that there is presented a section on the "Catholic" point of view, and on the "anti-Catholic" ones.

After reading another comment by RegBarc, it is even more apparent that people will cling to what they feel secure with, and may choose to disregard the bigger picture. I say this because RegBarc states,

"Now, before anyone points it out to me, let me say, I am aware that rickross.com is an anti-cult website. HOWEVER, the links I provided are not his, or his writers, thoughts or opinions. The two articles I listed there are from Time Magazine and the Washington Post. PBS has excellent resources on what happened at Waco, and I encourage anybody seeking to edit this article, or just looking for futher information to check it out." RegBarc 13:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Therein he mentions "Time Magazine," as though it is a reliable source for information on the Branch Davidian matter. The reason I mention this is that, as the author of the link (The Warfare...) that DoomsBringer wants to remove as being unfit for people to examine, I know first hand that Time magazine refuses to tell the true story, but, for whatever reason, is caught up in the popular misportayal of events. The reason that I can say this with confidence is that the Monday following the February 28, 1993 raid, I was interviewed by a reporter from said magazine for around one hour. Yet not only did that magazine choose to totally disregard my testimony (1) about how Vernon Howell's (a.k.a., David Koresh's) was at first (for nearly 4 years) a different association, with a different name (Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists), and was not even interested in seeing the proof of such (which is posted in Appendix 1 of that Warfare... link ); (2) of how Lois Roden did not lose her position as president of the church, nor pass her leadership on to Howell, but instead openly opposed his presumptions and assumptions, and (3) that I was one of the members of the church who did not leave it to go with Vernon Howell, but they went so far as to portray me as one of Howell's disaffected ex followers.

I have that Time article, if anyone wishes to see what I am taking about(I believe this writer maant to use the word talk instead of taking). The matter of Lois' antagonism to Howell's assumptions, and his admitting of the facts are quoted at the end of the Warfare... link. If anyone one wants a copy of the audio tape that is transcribed at the end of that presentation, I can supply it also. But you might be able to get a copy from the Koreshians. I would be curious to know if they have altered it.

What is really of note in this whole matter is that during the 1993 standoff one of the women who came out of the building stated that Koresh had said that he now wanted his followers to be known as "Koreshians." This was in many news reports at the time. Yet they are still claiming to be "Branch Davidians" in spite of the fact that they have forsaken most all of the fundamental teachings of the church. A perfect example is the well reported fact that the church teaches strict vegetarianism, yet Howell encouraged his followers to eat meat again, and did so freely himself. His wives (concubines) is another radical departure from clear, historic, Branch teachings.

I am not in the least bit pleased at the portrayal of the events that one of the Koreshians, or one of their supporters, have written in the article (and it appears that I am not alone in this), and feel that the only way to rectify the matter is to rewrite it stating that there are differing points of view, state those points of view individually, and let the chips fall where they may. That way the article will be much more accurate to the real situation, and not be so confusing or offensive to those of the differing POVs. After all, how can a controversial subject be properly reported without admitting and accurately portraying the controversy? anyone7 00:40, 21 July 2005

Umm...That whole quote wasn't me. Did you even read what he put there? The only thing I put was this: "It is not the place of Wikipedia to ask questions (rhetorical questions, at that). It's not NPOV. Also, you're inferring that they wished for combat and stating what their categorization is, instead of adding all sides. The prelude, raid, and aftermath need A LOT of work to remove this stuff. Also, the rickross stuff is POV links that can otherwise be obtained from less radical sources. If they can't be obtained from less radical sources as to recalling factual events, then they don't belong there."

That's it. It you have a problem with that, then adress that directly. But what you quoted was some other poster who was anon and untagged. RegBarc 01:00, 22 July 2005

Well, the thing is, I would have read that site, but at that point, I had already read the 5 or so other sites I had removed... and I was quite tired of reading them. Feel free to read it yourself, but I don't (and didn't) have time to give the link any deep thought or analysis. My thing about Bible verses is that they're usually just completely misconstrued or thrown in to make the thing seem more Christian (and thus, more important/serious/whatever). The goal of what I wrote about that link was to encourage someone else to do that one for me... I did the rest. DoomBringer 06:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry RegBarc

My sincerest apologies to RegBarc for misunderstand what was your position, and what was someone else's. I have read Rick Ross' things and found them to be quite biased, almost to the point of being purposely misleading. I find it hard to believe that people are able to rise above their own prejudices in this matter, as I have had quite the opposite experiences. I see that I need more faith in the power of truth to correctly influence even the most stubborn of hearts and minds. In my Wafare... link I not only tell about the experiences I had at the beginning of this controversy in the 1980s but through the 1993 incident, etc. I couldn't even get the members of Congress who were supposed to be investigating the truth of the matter to look into the fact that the true Branch church was continually being misrepresented. So I am sorry if I have acted in a combative manner, such has never been my intention.

We have had a hard time even getting the basic facts of our situation in the article, as others have repeatedly tried to remove them. I have not looked at the clean up work RegBarc has done recently, but I intend to as soon as possible. I have tried to avoid getting involved in either the Koreshian's or the government's POV on the matter, as they are both clearly trying to sustain their actions while condemning to other's. Though few may be able to see clearly to understand that the whole thing was a set up from the beginning, and was designed to go down pretty much the way it did, I can only pray that people's hearts and minds will be exercised by these controversies to see the overall picture, as sad and hard as it may be.

So regarding the many reports, books, investigations, and other things people have said about the BD situation, I can only say, "Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?" Isa 2:22 (sorry DoomBringer, for the Bible verse) anyone7 09:26, 22 July 2005

Missing links

Who is Amo Bishop Roden? S/he is mentioned in the bottom section but not in the top. Presumably this person is related to the other Rodens in the article, but how or who?

Also, what is the connection to MOVE? It is not explained in either article.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 00:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've just created a stub for Amo Bishop Roden, actually not in response to your request, but after seeing her redlinked on the page for the Boards of Canada EP, In a Beautiful Place... I don't want wikipedia to be cluttered up with articles on every obscure Tom, Dick, and Harriet, but apparently someone else thought she deserved a wikilink.

I've also now edited the "Today" section to link to my new entry, and also to change references to Amo Bishop to Amo Roden. Calling her by her maiden name is a way of casting aspersions on the legitimacy of her marriage to George Roden (and more broadly, to her claim on Mt. Carmel, even her claim to be a Branch Davidian). While there are grounds for doing so, she calls herself ABR and she's known to the public as such. It would be akin to someone changing all references to David Koresh to Vernon Howell, or Muhammad Ali to Cassius Clay. Besides, she has had many other husbands besides George, so using her maiden name is dubious also.

As for MOVE, there is no direct connection. Many people see parallels between the two situations: grudges over dead officers, exaggerated reports of massive arsenals and fortresslike defenses, excessive force, fires allowed to burn out of control, callous disregard for the lives of "cultists..." One tangential connection is that Ron Noble, the nominee for Treasury law enforcement undersecretary, had been a Philadelphia official at the time of MOVE. When he got wind of the planned ATF raid, he was nervous about another potential MOVE disaster, and got reassurances that the raid would be called off if the element of surprise was lost. (Though there is a theory that after ATF commanders learned they didn't have surprise, they called him to get his OK for the raid.)

I also can't see a direct connection to Gordon Kahl, for that matter. When he was surrounded, the feds used CS gas, and when he didn't come out (because he had been fatally shot, but they didn't know that), they set fire to his hideout to burn him out. The parallels some people see should be obvious. --WacoKid 22:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

David Koresh was not BDSDA; and BDSDA is not David Koresh

Was really glad to see the separating out of the "Waco Seige" information. And am looking forward to seeing the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist article be more fully fleshed out soon. As another commentator suggested, I have been reading the lengthy (but very interesting and information-packed!) paper *The Warfare against the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists by David Koresh, and Others (available at www.the-branch.org). Additionally, I have been checking out some of the items contained in the Warfare paper (including the assertion that David Koresh for a period of time used the name "Davidian BDSDA" for his group), and (from a myriad of sources, pro and con BDSDA) it ALL CHECKS OUT. For those who just won't have the time to read the "Warfare" paper (or, if they have no SDA background), an improved Wiki article will be a great service.

For here is a main idea to keep in mind: David Koresh is not BDSDA! So what is BDSA? Well -- that is what the Wiki article should be about (NOT about David Koresh -- who deceptively stole the name and has confused everyone for too long).

I don't know if those without a true SDA background will easily understand all that is involved. But I DO know that EVERY lover of Freedom and Truth CAN fully appreciate what a breathe of fresh air it is to finally have the facts becoming available to all who care to read them. And THAT is what epitomizes the role of Wikipedia: Making the information available to all who desire to know the truth. For as fantastic as it may sound, the GREATER sin may have been committed not by the ATF/FBI, etc. (horrific as it was!) and with the resulting temporal deaths of dozens of men, women, and children; but by David Koresh -- who deceived not only those under his tutelage, but also all those of us who were for too long given a wrong picture of BDSDA (which could have resulted in COUNTLESS ETERNAL deaths).

--WestPalmBeach 03:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I added some info on Koresh renaming his group after 1985. If you want to see the legal document, I have a .pdf of it. As for my qualifications, I was a follower of Koresh from 84-89. I am quoted in this article but I did not add that.

--Dbunds 14:52, 05 December 2007 (PST)

Factual Accuracy

If one of the major editors could let me know if this page is factually accurate in its current state, I would appreciate it; the Waco Siege article has a factual dispute tag that references this article as the source of the problem.Daemon8666 21:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept the current page as (at least more or less) accurate, which is why I removed the accuracy disputed tag on February 27. However, I don't agree that the Waco Siege article is accurate, which is why I put the tag there and plan to restore it.

I also wouldn't say that this article is the source of Waco Siege's problems, but the material itself, which attracts people who have more POV than knowledge. Thus, it caused accuracy and POV problems when it was in the David Koresh article, it carried the problems to this article, and remains problematic now that it has been separated into its own article. Branch Davidian got rid of most of its problems by shunting them off to W_S. What remains at this page would only be contentious to those who are more informed about the Branch Davidians than the general public. (An anti-Koresh Branch Davidian has edited this article, which is why it goes into so much detail about the post-1993 land dispute, but his POV has been pared down so that it is reasonably NPOV.) --WacoKid 22:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Innocent or guilty

The article states that when the survivors were put on trial,they were found not guilty of murder,but some of them were found guilty om manslaughter.I don't know that that is accurate.From ALL I have read and heard,after the jury found them all not guilty,the federal judge berated the jury,and then,in a legal move that I frankly don't understand,entered a guilty verdict.I am going to do some more research,get some sources and then probably edit out this BS and put in the facts.Saltforkgunman 02:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

They were acquitted of conspiracy to murder, convicted of manslaughter, but also for using a firearm in the conspiracy. Originally, the judge threw out the firearm verdict because of the inconsistency, but after the prosecution argued that there was precedent for inconsistent verdicts, he reinstated them, claiming that he had never thrown them out, only planned to later. Manslaughter carried a maximum of ten years, but the firearms charge allowed him to tack on another thirty. In justifying his sentencing, he even reversed the logic, arguing that since the jury convicted them of using a firearm in the conspiracy, they obviously believed them guilty of conspiracy to murder, despite a letter from the forewoman explaining that the jury had misunderstood, believing that the charge was for using a firearm in a felony including manslaughter, not tied specifically to the conspiracy count.

As far as "editing out this BS and putting in the facts," remember that Waco Siege is now the main article for the standoff, not this one. --WacoKid 23:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bad people?

Were the branch davidians necessarily bad people ? why did the government brutally murder them? -from ;1939newleader

Eirra 20:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC) In my opinion, they were not bad people. They were extremists. Also, it isn't proven that the government murdered them.

I have lived in the Waco area for a majority of my life. The Davidians were led a by a man who was on massive power trip and led his followers to their deaths. That and the way the govt. led the assualt that day could of been handle a lot differently.ShadowWriter 03:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Some clarification of terms

What was done to the people at the Branch Davidian 'compound' was a MASSACRE.Not a 'DEBACLE'. Not a 'TRAGEDY'.A debacle is when the President of the United States gets caught playing cigar with a teenage girl in his office and his wife finds out.Debacle.A tragedy is when a loaded semi runs over a carload of teenage pussy.Tragedy.It was a massacre.Saltforkgunman 05:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How eloquent! -- 12.116.162.162 18:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no Tragedy or Debacle or Massacre involved. A massacre is something like the revolutionaries getting shot in Boston after throwing snowballs at the British soldiers. A massacre is the events that happened at Kent State during Vietnam. What happened here was that federal agents entered the property, and were fired upon. 4 ATF agents were killed. If deadly force is used against you, there is no massacre. There is retalliation and victory. Essentially, this was a battle in which one side was poorly trained, outnumbered, and lacked the technology required to win.

[edited out useless verbal attack]

Seven Seals Inclusion

This article would benefit from a brief description and explanation of the Seven Seals. I think understanding the Seven Seals is key to understanding the Branch Davidians. As far as online resources go, I'm not sure what site would be the most reliable to quote or link to. Religious sites tend to be on the subjective side...

And as a side note, why is the Waco Siege article so God awful? That article must be one of the worst ones in all of Wiki land. Mr Christopher 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't strike me as particularly bad. WhiteCat 09:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On second thought perhaps I'll quote my trusty bible for the Seven Seals :-) Mr Christopher 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain what this sentence is saying?

Davidians believed prophesy to foretell a cyclic series of events, described as a spiral, with history returning to prophetically foretell events but each time, advance in terms of cosmological progress.

I can't make heads or tails of it. Mr Christopher 04:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It means that history repeats itself in a foreseeable manner as the universe ages. Or it means that the frog in your blender will go round and round if you keep pushing the button. Take your pick. Rklawton 04:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll take frogs in a blender for $200, Alex...Seriously, I am working on some of the early Davidian history and that sentence is probably going to go unless some evidence surfaces to support it. I haven't found anything remote that suggests that reflects Davidian beliefs Mr Christopher 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Whoever first wrote that was apparently paraphrasing from Dick Reavis' Ashes of Waco, which in trying to explain about "typical" and "antitypical" events, uses the spiral metaphor (early in Chapter 6, p. 59 in the original hardcover). A closer look at this passage indicates that he was actually attributing this quality to typological conceptions in general, not just the Davidian version: "According to views which accept 'typical' and 'antitypical' events... history is like a spiral..." I did a text search on two Davidian sites that feature the collected works of VT Houteff, and the word "spiral" does not appear on them. So it is likely that the passage represents Reavis' understanding, rather than how Davidians themselves think of their beliefs.

Note that I'd already made two changes to that sentence. First, I added the beginning phrase, "According to Houteff's heavily typological system," in order to introduce the concept of typology explicitly. Second, I moved it from one of the last paragraphs in the History section to the top, to make it clear that it was a teaching Koresh inherited rather than originated. --WacoKid 23:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Raid and Siege

Paragraph #1 states "Eventually, legal authorities investigated their charges." The authorities involved should be specified here. It's not clear if this references the local child welfare authorities or the Drug Enforcement Agency. Rklawton 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this section is only intended as a brief summary, those who want details are directed to the Waco Siege article. --WacoKid 22:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Naming the authority doesn't change the length of the sentence. Just replace "the local authorities" with the name of the authority (e.g. "state child welfare" or "the DEA" etc). Rklawton 17:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

This article needs to be pared down. Especially towards the end, a lot of the information is obscure (to put it mildly). To a person reading about Branch Davidian for the first time, like me, it's a bit of a put-off. --Smithfarm 18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Government Confrontation

Something needs to be mentioned about the critics of the government in more detail. There is no mention of who ordered the military-style seige. There is little mention of how many see this as unncessary confrontation with religious groups by government agencies and how some claims about them as cults grew out of proportion while other facts were perhaps not realized. There is little mention about all the various viewpoints detailed here. Some even going so far as to call it murder. It could be given that they were "surrounded" and perceived to being shot at by the mere act of exiting. Also, little detail about what attempts there were to rescue children or the survivors IMHO. This article is almost a stub. Many people were glued to their sets during the whole seige. It was one of the biggest media frenzies of its time next to the OJ trials. Why that is would be worthy of yet another article. Also, what did the government do after the fact? Would or could they do something like this again or have measures been taken to prevent confrontations like this? Is the advancement of humanism in modern society seen as the cureall by the government and no further action was taken? Lives were lost. I do appreciate links to cults. They fit most definitions but some might even open that for debate as to how and how not or if the definition is fair or not. (another article though but one in which this would be an example). Dare I edit without fear of losing my work due to PC'ness and perceived slants?

Johngagon 12:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

language

okay, i'm new at this so go easy on me. i don't know all of the facts of the case. however, the language alone seems biased. even if all of the facts are correct, and they may be, the way the article is written would tend to make me discount the information in it. can this be corrected? Ampardue 18:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of bias

I tried to remove the bias from the Raid and Siege section. I think I got most of it. If everyone else agrees, the article can probably be un-tagged. Ultiam 03:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WAR

It is possible that those that survived may be preparing for war. Can this be stated ? 65.173.105.79 01:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I'm going to work on sourcing the article. Word. Missvain (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)