Talk:Robert Brinsmead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Recent edits[edit]

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
I think it is important to distinguish between unattributed, unquoted non-neutral material and sourced quotations that express a particular point of view. To exclude sourced quotations that are emotional or pejorative is, in my view, just as harmful to the richness of an article as it is to include unsourced opinions with those characteristics. The end result in both cases is to present a picture that is slanted or one-sided. The issue with R. Cottrell's characterizations of Brinsmead is not whether Cottrell was himself emotional or biased. That is really irrelevant. The question is: Did he say it, did his opinion illustrate a point relevant to the article, and can the quotation be referenced. If we quoted only individuals we thought were objective, we would not get any flavor of the extent of the controversy of the time. --Chazann (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

More replies[edit]

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)
It turns out there is a citation about the emotion surrounding Brinsmead and his views. I have added a quote from a published article by Larry Pahl, "The name of Robert D. Brinsmead was once capable of evoking strong emotion and division in the Adventist circles brave and informed enough to discuss his controversial ideas." It seems that there are good sources of information on Brinsmead, so let's hunt them for useful citations. Colin MacLaurin 08:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality changes[edit]

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)
Fully agreed. Colin MacLaurin 16:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
How long does one wait for documentation to appear before deleting material? --Chazann 21:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Raymond Cottrell quote in the "Emotional Gravity" section should be reframed or removed. Cottrell makes broad-brush claims that conclude, in a summary assertion, that Brinsmead's theological journey is evidence of "immaturity." I read that as an attack on his person. What Mr. Cottrell "cannot help but wonder" is not, to my mind, a useful way to describe Mr. Brinsmead. After all, this entry is an attempt to provide a relatively neutral and fact-based description of Mr. Brinsmead's life and teaching. Mr. Cottrell's claims are an evidence, not of what Brinsmead believed or taught, but of his own anxiety concerning Brinsmead's life and influence. As it stands, it reads like a personal attack.Doug0531 03:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Doug, thanks for commenting on this. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, I agree that the comment should be removed. I have left the Pahl comment, which is not nearly so strong - what do you think? Colin MacLaurin 06:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I revised the section on reactivity. A clear focus on this subject is crucial to understanding this man and his message. I have not actually contributed any of the quotations in that section, but they seemed naturally joined to one another by the theme of leadership reactivity. I do appreciate whomever found these and brought them into this essay. "Church tension" is, to my mind, not adequately descriptive of the quotes. Tension is too weak a term for what happened back in the day, and in that sense it is somewhat misleading. Reactivity, a more accurate representation of this section's theme, is not a pejorative term, but a descriptive one. Brinsmead's legacy is clarified when the persistence and pervasiveness of leadership reactivity is clearly acknowledged. "Brinsmead was also antagonistic at times" is without attribution and is, in the context of this section, somewhat beside the point. Church leaders and members in those days easily dismissed the strident voices of other would-be reformers, in part because of their antagonistic spirit. Brinsmead stayed focused on theology and church history. He did not indulge in personal attacks. His dissent was certainly interpreted as disloyalty to the church. That conflation is one evidence of reactivity driven by an ideological posture toward one's own privileged belief system. This helps to explain why his impact was out of proportion to all other reform voices of his day, combined. Overall, he took himself much less seriously than did most of his antagonists. Desmond Ford was an exception. Excessive seriousness is the fertilizer of reactivity. Doug0531 (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Doug, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, an "official policy... and is considered a standard that all users should follow." First line: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
In terms of verifiability, your edits cannot be verified by anyone. Any statement likely to be challenged (that is, most of this article) must have a citation to a reliable source; predominantly third-party ones. This means that someone with firsthand knowledge cannot simply add their opinion. This applies to everyone - I removed Gill Ford's comment also. Reference it.
Regarding "truth", it is determined on Wikipedia by NPOV and published sources. Yet I will comment anyway for good faith. The term "emotional reactivity" has a very non-neutral connotation. It implies a defensive, reactionary stance by the leaders. What do the sources say? Well Brinsmead himself states it was mutual. Good sources do say many leaders were reactive, but many criticise Brinsmead as well. Raymond Cottrell was not reactionary - read what he said, and what Arthur Patrick said about him in this regard, that Cottrell, Thurber, Heppenstall, and others gave "more friendly critiques".[1] (also read about his life, which I have just expanded). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Colin, I did not choose this selection of quotes. Who did? I merely summarized what they collectively say. Summary observations that join persons and/or ideas are certainly within the boundaries of Wikipedia standards. It is legitimate to read these quotes as to the emotional process that informs them (and joins them), not merely as to surface content (and, to be clear, I am not equating surface with superficial). I made no truth claims, and I ask that you clarify where and how you read my entry doing that. I am a marriage and family therapist, and I am quite aware of the distinction between neutral and non-neutral language. "Emotional reactivity" is a descriptor, not an accusation. The statements, *as they stand* do reflect a defensive, reactionary stance by those who said these things, and at the time and in the context in which they said them. And why is that a surprise? How major players managed their own anxiety is part of the story. The anxiety inherent in differences back then played out in both theological and emotional ways. In no other portion of this overall entry is that point made with clarity. Meaning in language is not merely with reference to syntax and vocabulary, and perhaps not even primarily so. Attitudes are true figures of speech.
Wikipedia entries are not simply dictionary-like documents, with a banquet-spread of choices from which one may draw any and all conclusions. They are narratives thatorganize history and ideas around stories that are verifiable and commendable to reasonable interpretation. A core element of this historic controversy had to do with how anxiety was processed by protagonists. Some managed their reactivity more successfully, and some did not. Colin, *that* is also part of the story. I do not believe that trying to be evenhanded on this matter (i.e. church leaders were reactive but so was Brinsmead) is an intellectually honest way to tell this story. I am not referring to any contributor, but to the process itself.
To say that Brinsmead conceded his own reactivity certainly deserves a place in this entry. Someone would do well to ransack the sources to find representative claims from his own hand (and not simply those of his opponents). I read every one of Tom Durst's old "Gems of Truth," a lay journal that carried Brinsmead's views in the 1960s, and I do not remember anything like that in that publication. FWIW, I donated my complete collection to Atlantic Union College's library in the 1980s. Perhaps you could contact a librarian there to read them through once more. The same goes for Present Truth/Verdict, which criticized (among other things) neo-pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement, and (either implicitly or explicitly) SDA soteriology. E-mail Bill Diehl, the maintainer of and ask him if he has any documentation of Brinsmead personally attacking church leaders. And when any of that is found, it ought to find a way in to this evolving entry.
The last paragraph of that section entry needs work. I dropped it in at the end, sort of as a marker to myself. The presence of anxiety in all relationship systems is simply a fact of life. How leaders manage their own anxiety, as well as how they avoid (or not) reactive posturing, is a vital part of the story of any theological controversy. How one ought to represent that process in this kind of entry (I am convinced it deserves a place at the table) is a challenge for every contributor, including myself. Doug0531 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Doug. I took a few days out to mull over this discussion. I added all the quotes. It was because an editor (you? I can't remember) thought that there wouldn't be any published references to say how tense and controversial the situation was. I discovered with interest that such comments have been published by good sources, and added them (admittedly the Standish brothers are not the best source).
Agreed it is legitimate to summarize sources. Disagreed that it is "legitimate to read these quotes as to the emotional process that informs them (and joins them), not merely as to surface content". That is original research. I don't agree "[t]he statements... reflect a defensive, reactionary stance by those who said these things", at least not all. Do you really think Raymond Cottrell was emotionally reactive? Reliable sources say the opposite. Arthur Patrick describes "Cottrell, Thurber, Heppenstall, et al." as offering "more friendly critiques".[2] Cottrell said he listened carefully to Bob and John, just to listen and understand, not to confront, before writing his review. As a progressive thinker, this evidence is all against him being emotionally reactive. Nor Larry Pahl - read his article. In his reported dialogue, it is Brinsmead who was reactive during their conversation.
Conducting your own personal analysis on the statements, even if you are a trained therapist, amounts to original research. If a reliable source says Brinsmead didn't attack the leadership, and that the latter were reactive, then please add it to the article. To summarize what the quotes say, they simply say that the atmosphere of the time surrounding Brinsmead was emotionally charged and controversial. While certain leaders are singled out, the source do not blame the leaders. Colin MacLaurin 05:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


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)


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)


  • 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,, 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)
I do not believe represents the current views of Robert Brinsmead. If it did, I expect it would be publishing articles by him (since he is or at least was a prolific writer), which it has never done. As a subscriber who corresponds with the editor, I am personally certain that neither the writings nor ideas of Brinsmead are used in its publications. It would be easy, however, to verify this by using the reader's comment page to ask the question. I deleted the reference that indicated Worldview Publications echoes Brinsmead's current thinking, since it was (a) undocumented, and (b) to my knowledge, incorrect. Since this discussion indicates that it was inserted tentatively, I'm assuming this will not be a controversial deletion. --Chazann 22:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
"Wall of Division" is a phrase found here: /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 (talkcontribs) 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)

I shall take time over the next little while to expand and clarify material in the 1970s section. Consider this a work in progress. I encourage William Ferguson to apply his skill and knowledge to areas of his expertise in the Current Beliefs section. Mr. Ferguson may also be aware of other Internet sites that can be used for reference and research, and I and certainly others would appreciate learning about them. I welcome Mr. Ferguson's contributions. Doug0531 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Information supplied by Ferguson and Brinsmead's niece[edit]

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), which I have already used as a (admittedly not strong) reference, "piped" as "Archived emails regarding Valorie Brinsmead's passing from" 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)
Thank-you for your positive assessment of their reliability, however the question is how Wikipedia would see it. An article may get away with some unreferenced minor details. However, the claim about Avondale is a very dubious sounding point - please don't misunderstand me here - on a personal level I trust Ferguson and B's niece (see WP:AGF), but this is a surprising claim, and another source would be better. Regarding the Desmond Ford comment, there are policies about that - I ask that others help by searching them out themselves. A principle is that sources should be check-able by other readers and editors, so a private email is of dubious help. What would be very helpful is if Ford published something somewhere about it. A lesser step but quite sufficient (because Ford is already notable independent of his website - that's a policy somewhere) would be if Ford put something up on one of his webpages. But emailing Ford is a good idea - I will plan to do this. (But even if Ford does agree, it is still one POV - point of view. For example, sceptics of supernatural events - a major position or POV - would disagree. -Colin MacLaurin 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your willingness to e-mail Dr. Ford and seek more objective validation concerning some claims around his 1950s views of Mr. Brinsmead at Avondale College. My main point, however, was really more about using Mr. Brinsmead's niece's e-mail as a voice to ground claims concerning high school performance, year of college graduation, etc. I do hope you're not claiming that objective grade records from, say, Murwillumbah High School from the 1950s would be required in order to make a comment about high school performance. A URL pointing to the e-mail in which these kind of minor claims are made ought to be adequate, it would seem. Also, Dr. Ford's attestation concerning his view of Mr. Brinsmead's influence and energy in 1957 may not even exist on the Internet. I don't know how one ought to handle this matter. Your last sentence about skeptics of supernatural events is not clear. Say again what you were trying to say in that sentence. Doug0531 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Year of college graduation etc. are fine, in my opinion, if referenced from his niece. Personally, I have barely read any of the materials I have added in the external links section, and none of the offline sources apart from an old version of Schwarz. We need to scrutinise these for citations, cite as much as we can, and see what is lacking. About supernatural sceptics, I meant that it is not a totally neutral statement to say 'God said such and such to Ford...' since even if Ford himself says this, many POVs (points of view) will disagree, and Wikipedia should state all major POVs. However if Ford does admit it, I think that asserting the event without any "Ford claims..." would be OK, but others may disagree. Colin MacLaurin 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
A quick scan of one of the Adventist Today articles showed it has a lot of good information, which we should add. The other article seems broken at the moment. I would do it myself but I'm currently enjoying travelling Germany! Ciao (Italian import to Germany), Colin MacLaurin 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

William Ferguson, I recently tried to e-mail you at quango at wavefront dot com, and it bounced. In part I wrote, "It is clear from what you have written that Mr. Brinsmead has had a substantial impact on your own life and thinking, since at least the mid-1990s. I do hope that you would consider strengthening and clarifying the Wikipedia entry. I have no vested interest in this process, other than to strengthen that portion of the narrative for which I have knowledge." I regard your knowledge of Mr. Brinsmead's current thinking as important to this project. I sincerely encourage your active participation in rounding out this entry. Doug0531 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This begins to answer my question about how long a section should remain before it is taken down. It is unfortunate that the e-mail you sent, Doug0531, bounced. Sometimes apparent bounces do go through, so we could hope for that. How long will we wait before heavily redacting or deleting this section. I think it would be quite interesting to get some documentation of Brinsmead's current views. Surely there must be some available. Does anyone have an e-mail or address for him? It would seem he should at least be contacted to verify his current thinking or to ask if he has published anything recently. Chazann 22:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Contacting him is a great idea. However, please do not add information from private emails to Wikipedia. Ask Brinsmead or others to publish their views somewhere, at least on a personal website (that applies if they are already notable, e.g. Ford or Brinsmead etc.), and then quote that website in Wikipedia. See policies re: referencing and citing. Colin MacLaurin 08:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Desmond Ford, I have emailed Good News Unlimited asking for his point of view. Regarding Ferguson, try another email address, as the second one I found worked for me (but not the first). Colin MacLaurin 02:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out this content guideline: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Says sources should be reliable third-party sources, from good authorities, etc. Colin MacLaurin 07:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability policy[edit]

I've been harping on about Wikipedia:No original research a lot, but what I was really thinking of was:

Please have a quick read. By the way, this Brinsmead article and the dynamics of its creation/progress are fascinating. Colin MacLaurin 07:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Brinsmead websites[edit]

The following critical site has a good list of links for Brinsmead and various other Adventist figures: Colin MacLaurin 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Quango website does indeed seem to act as a repository for Brinsmead's writings. Wmferguson, are you the only contributor, or are there others. A very brief description (like 8 words or so) of the site's POV (point of view) in the external links section in the article would assist readers. Colin MacLaurin 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Material moved from page[edit]

This material does not have a good citation, and hence is not easily verifiable. This should have been done long ago, and there is still more material that should also be moved. Colin MacLaurin 15:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

According to friends of Brinsmead, the week prior to Robert being dismissed from Avondale, Desmond Ford, then a theology professor, said he was sitting on the platform ready to take the Sabbath (Saturday) church service at Avondale, "when a voice directed him to look at Brinsmead"[1] The voice said to Ford, "this young man is my chosen vessel",[1] although Ford fought this conviction for many years. Ford later spent time in Brinsmead's extended family during the months when Ford's wife was dying of cancer. Ford had many hours of dialogue with Brinsmead and eventually joined forces with Brinsmead in delivering the gospel to Adventists in the 1980s.[citation needed]

According to Ford's wife Gill,

"This event is fictionalized. Des Ford didn't hear a voice about Bob Brinsmead, he saw him in the chapel audience at Avondale and thought he had a look of destiny (I've heard the story several times, I am Des's wife). Des took his first wife Gwen to be nursed by Verna Brinsmead and Hope Taylor. Yes, he would have discussed theology with Bob, but they did not join forces. Later Bob would come to our house maybe once a year and he and Des would go for a walk and talk theology. I followed and tried to keep up, It was all about theology, no politics. One of the most exciting things was when a hive of bees went after Bob because he had Brylcreem on his hair. Most of the time in their many years of friendship, Des and Bob were on opposite sides in whatever they were discussing. They agreed on righteousness by faith and, later, Hebrews 9 in the 70s and early 80s. Elder Keith Parmenter thought Des was in cahoots with Bob, because John Brinsmead told him they were (late 1978, about a year before the Oct 79 Forum)—a complete mystery to Des and myself why John would say this, and apparently KP thought similarly to the author of this article--that this so-called mateship started when Gwen was sick and staying up in NNSW with Verna). Yes, Keith Parmenter was intensely focussed on Des's relationship with Bob Brinsmead in the Friday afternoon meeting when Des was disciplined at Glacier View. Des and I were mystified about this for years, since nobody really talked to us face to face about it. Parmenter thought similarly to this person. Not true, not true—Gill Ford."

This quote by Raymond Cottrell is not fitting for a biography of a living peron:

"Robert Brinsmead’s repeated and mutually contradictory positions over the years, together with his dogmatic public insistence on each of them successively, is clear evidence of immaturity. One cannot help but wonder if the present one is final, or if it is—like the others—ephemeral and will be followed by others."[2]
This statement (and perhaps other like it) could appropriately fit into the article, but not as a comment on Brinsmead himself (as we both agree, Colin). Rather, these kinds of statements reflect the intensity and duration of the reactivity that existed (and perhaps still exists) in the SDA church over the Brinsmead controversy. That Raymond Cottrell could write as pointedly as he did in 1999, almost two decades after Robert Brinsmead was fading from Adventist radar, is clear evidence of the persistence of Brinsmead's influence in the minds of some church thought leaders over time. The matter of Brinsmead's influence seemingly is not fully done, and Mr. Cottrell's broad-brush summary is clear evidence of that. A new section heading, say, "The Persistence of Reactivity," could provide evidence of the emotional impact of Brinsmead over time, in addition to the specifics (in other sections) of his theological impact. Doug0531 (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
One of the presenters at the Questions on Doctrine#50th anniversary conference held last month talked about the influence of Brinsmead even recently (in Asia?). Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent views[edit]

This material has no references (Wikipedia:Verifiability):

date=December 2007 date=August 2007 Template:Trim A major theological change was regarding the divinity of Jesus. Brinsmead came to believe that the Jesus born of a virgin, by divine celestial impregnation, was merely a Greco-Roman heroic overlay of the Jewish man's history. He claims the virgin birth was unknown to Jesus' followers. Mithra, Caesar, and others were also attributed such circumstances of birth in their time, as was the historic custom of writers of that time. You might say that the superheros of that time were expected to wear their capes. Joseph Campbell calls this phenomenon "the Hero with a thousand faces". Yet the story of the Jesus of History is so compelling a story, so unique in its place in time, it can only be genuine. The reality of Christian teaching is that it is not built just built upon the words of Jesus, but also on the words and opinions of the Apostle Paul and writings attributed to Paul along with the thoughts and interpretations of early Church Fathers and scribes.

Brinsmead sees the salvation story of Jesus in a new light. It's not one of an incarnated God giving himself to die for the sins of mankind (hence the requirement for the incarnational theology and the incomprehensible baggage of the trinity - to retain the claim of monotheism). As a result, Brinsmead moved toward a Unitarian position on the Deity. When asked if he believed that Jesus was the son of God, Brinsmead replied "only in the sense that you and I and every human are the sons of God and the incarnate expression of God in this physical world".[citation needed]

According to Brinsmead, [citation needed] the story of Jesus is that of a man God loved who was the first fully human man—A man not motivated by revenge and payback justice (If Jesus taught to turn the other cheek would not also the Father teach and practice that?) [citation needed] Brinsmead characterizes the teaching of Jesus as a message about "the scandalous generosity" that is our inheritance as the children of God that includes a relationship with an "Abba" (literally "daddy") Father. There was no fall from God. Where can we go where God is not? Death did not enter the world through Adam, dinosaurs were ripping flesh from limb and bone long before Adam and Eve. There was no perfect past paradise we lost. We are given everything we need, and God's forgiveness and compassion and generosity are beyond our comprehension. We come from God, we return to God, and our sole requirement of life, is as Jesus said of his followers "That they love one another".[citation needed] In this sense of God and Jesus, Brinsmead and Michael Morwood find a high degree of resonance. It's a straight on theology with the maker of all things.[citation needed]

Brinsmead increasingly saw the message of Jesus in terms of serving humans, and that there was no such thing as "loving God" in the abstract. All we know about love, expressing love, giving love, comes from the human contacts we have made. None of us have seen God. None of have talked face to face with God. Yet humans insist arrogantly that we love God through abstractions of ritual and dogma. Brinsmead posits that humans only show love towards God when humans show love towards each other. Jesus was conflating the two great laws (which even the Pharisees understood) yet they thought they could love God before humans.

"There is no concept such as loving God in the abstract, none of us know what God is like, and our very definitions of God preclude we ever will as humans know what God is in totality. Every evil of religion has come from putting 'God' before the needs of Humans. Every suicide bomber thinks he's honoring God. Every religious persecutor is doing it in the name of their God. Every religious war is in the name of God",[citation needed]

Brinsmead argues. Brinsmead believes religion gets it wrong when it puts loving God at a higher priority than loving humans. "It is impossible to love God in the abstract!",[citation needed] Brinsmead is well known for saying.

Brinsmead's current research interests are the similarities between environmental Global Warming apocalyptic thinking and the apocalyptic thinking of Christendom. In religion, God strikes back at a fallen sinful mankind, in deep ecology global warming rhetoric, nature strikes back at her disrespectful child.

Both viewpoints long for a long lost paradise that never existed. Nature has become the new God. Particularly disturbing to Brinsmead is the deep ecology thinking of Arne Næss who views that mankind has no more right to this planet than mosquitoes. He views this new environmental apocalyptic thinking as a mutated meme of Christian apocalyptic thought and that both are antagonistic to human needs.

Brinsmead remains an unabashed free enterprise proponent and sees mankind as the pinnacle of this earth's biological development, echoing the progressive element of Modernism. He does not believe applying totalitarian governmental principles or taxes to the environment will work any better at protecting it than it did for Russia and China, who already have the most appalling environmental records.[citation needed] Brinsmead, like most Christians, does believe in the wise stewardship of the creation and its resources. He makes his living as a horticulturist on a farm with over 500 species of tropical fruit trees.[citation needed] Brinsmead sees the current witch hunt attitude towards global warming skeptics having much in common with the heresy hunts of religion.[dubious ] Such hunts are never about arriving at truth, they are about protecting dogma and those who teach dogma. Brinsmead has toppled his own dogmas (much to consternation of those who want pidgeon hole him) on several occasions when he felt it no longer represented what he felt was true. Life and understanding, he feels, is a journey. Environmental science should be as brave.

Brinsmead believes we do not live in a zero sum game when it comes to the environment or the economy. He believes science needs to be used where possible to determine truth. God has already given us everything we need - but its often up to us to figure out how to use what has been given. That is the God given role of mankind on the planet. To do what nature could never do for itself. Modern research into nanotechnology points to new ways to use limited resources. Research into zero-point energy by physics seems to indicate that we are literally swimming in a sea of energy - without the use of fossil fuels - if we can figure out how to harness it.

Other cuts[edit]

This should have been done long ago: Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Brinsmead studied under Dr. Burns, then head of theology, and according to friends of Brinsmead, he was leading a great interest in spiritual things among his fellow students.[1][citation needed] The college was in full revival mode with room meetings until midnight on many nights.[citation needed] There was such a ground swell among students the church leadership began to take notice of Brinsmead.[citation needed]

According to friends of Brinsmead, in his final months of school he wrote a book which a relative published against his wishes and knowledge.[1] The book ended by quoting a Bible prophecy that the abomination would enter the Holy Land.[citation needed] Adventist church leadership took this to mean that Bob was teaching that "the abomination that maketh desolate"[citation needed] was in the church. According to friends of Brinsmead, this book was influential in his dismissal from Avondale: that he was denied graduation from Avondale, although he did receive his BA in theology.[citation needed]

Evangelical era
He was a prolific writer and public speaker in the United States (and occasionally Europe) throughout the 1970s, engaging a variety of interested lay and professional audiences.[citation needed]

This helps to explain why readership expanded remarkably from 1972 levels.[citation needed] In 1976 Brinsmead claimed that his magazine, Present Truth had a readership of 100,000.[citation needed] Typically, 45,000 to 70,000 copies were printed for circulation.[citation needed] The issue dedicated to Righteousness by Faith realized a circulation of over one million copies.[citation needed]

In the early 1970s Brinsmead contacted Neal C. Wilson and other General Conference leaders seeking theological rapprochement, to no avail.[dubious ]

Present Truth Magazine[edit]

"Brinsmead first published the magazine Present Truth in April 1972." I removed this uncited comment since it disagrees with the published source by Gary Land, who says it was started in 1968 but aimed at a more general audience in the 1970s after he gave up perfectionism.

This might explain it: one entry called "Present truth" in the library catalogue says it was published "Snohomish, Wash. : International Health Institute, 196?-1971." Also "Vol. 4, no. 4 (Nov. 7, 1970)... Edited by Norman Jarnes."

This may solve the discrepancy. It appears Brinsmead changed publishers in 1972 to one in Fallbrook, California. Perhaps the volume numbering restarted. Essentially a new magazine, with a different perspective(?) See the article Present Truth Magazine I've started, and please contribute to it, with verifiable comments. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Colin, I believe that Land hasn't done his homework, and I'm not about to do it for him. A citation for the first issue of PT, April 1972, can be found in any library that might contain hard copies of the original issues. I have a complete set, beginning to end. My own first-hand knowledge of this process began in the early 1970s. In terms of Brinsmead's impact on the SDA denomination, the 1970s was the decade that matters, the era when the greatest impact occurred. The 1960s was a fly in the room. You could save yourself chasing rabbits by simply asking questions of those who were primaries in those days. Have you contacted Mr. Brinsmead as yet, to interview him, as I suggested to you months ago? Have you asked Bill Diehl ( what he remembers? What about Norman Jarnes, son of the late Peter Jarnes (who taught theology at Union College, Lincoln NE)? Norman ran the office throughout the 1970s in Fallbrook CA. For 1960s information, try Tom Durst, Jack Walker. The 1970s Present Truth (name changed to Verdict in 1978) is the vehicle that both captured the attention of SDAs as well as the imagination of non-SDA protestant evangelicals in that decade. Ask some of these people what they remember about IHI history. Then, when you get your information sufficiently grounded, you could post it to this Wikipedia essay. Otherwise, you're going to be left with a mishmash. The real test of your work is when those of us who were there read those portions of the essay that address events we knew first-hand, and we agree that it is an accurate telling of the story of thirty and forty years ago.Doug0531 (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I have made some changes to the article, expressing both points of view (actually for the birth year I have put cited views in a footnote only, so they have less significance given them) - a combining of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, I guess :-). I appreciate your suggestion or challenge to meet Brinsmead - Bill Ferguson gave me Brinsmead's email and I plan to email him tomorrow have emailed him. On a similar note, I have had the good fortune of having numerous in depth conversations recently with Arthur Patrick - I certainly find it interesting to meet these guys. Here's a challenge/suggestion for you in return: it seems that you and other editors are keen that your perspectives be understood - how about you (and others) write up your recollections, and ask to put them on their website? One question: you omitted to address the item of evidence I mentioned above - this database entry. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
You have a much broader interest in this overall entry that I do. My knowledge is of the 1970s. Other than some early demographic details that I've been aware of for many years, my contributions are almost exclusively about the 1970s. For info about the 1960s, contact Norman Jarnes, Jack Zwemer, Tom Durst. Norman led the publishing work in Snohomish WA and later at Fallbrook CA. The 1970s Present Truth/Verdict was a breed of another color, not strictly the child of anything done in the 1960s (though, of course, in sequence one followed the other). Colin, everyone wants to be understood, even you. Other than to state the obvious, what might be your point about "keen that your perspectives be understood?"Doug0531 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I was suggesting a good way for you (and others) to express your recollection of events. I would support adding an external link from this page and Present Truth Magazine to such a webpage. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Is this article by Brinsmead? If so, it contradicts a few facts in the article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This Editorial Introduction is from Present Truth, Volume 7, Number 2, March 1978. The tag line "Come, let us reason together," was used by Mr. Brinsmead for all the years the journal was published. In my hard copy of this issue are his initials at the end of this editorial, RDB. Doug0531 (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
This is a primary source. Gary Land's encyclopedia (quoted in this article) is probably a tertiary source. Wikipedia articles should use mainly secondary and tertiary sources. However I agree that Brinsmead knows better than Land about the dates of his own life! Let's cite Brinsmead for these details, but we must keep it to a minimum. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


Which sort of "liberal" was Brinsmead in the 1980s? I have called the decade "Liberal era" after Pahl's comment, "Brinsmead's scholarship turned, some would say, liberal."[3] Does this mean liberal Christian or liberal Adventist? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Brinsmead had not been an Adventist since the early 1960s. The likelihood that the Adventist denomination would want to own him in the 1980s would be none. The reference point, it seems to me, is certainly not Adventism. Perhaps the liberalization of his own mindset is what is at issue here.Doug0531 (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Birth year[edit]

Brinsmead himself emailed me and told me his birthdate is "August 9, 1933". He also said that last time he read this article, the year and month of his birth were both wrong. Gary Land's article also says 1933. I have changed the dates. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Brinsmead and his niece are working on their own account of his experiences, an editor told me. When it is available, we can cite things like exact birth date from it. Anything likely to be challenged we need to precede with a "In Brinsmead's view..." etc. A source like this should not be the major source for the article. It is a primary source, not neutral or independent, and probably will be self-published. See the policies. Yet used properly minimally, it will be a welcome improvement for the article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference ValEmails was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cottrell, Raymond (May 1999). "Whither, Robert D. Brinsmead?". Adventist Today. Loma Linda, CA: Adventist Today Foundation. 7 (3). ISSN 1079-5499. Retrieved 2007-11-04.