Jump to content

Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Branhamites Vs. Christians

There needs to be a distinction between the crazy branhamites that believe Brother. Branham is Christ, and the people who just believe that he was a prophet a man of God yet still believe Jesus Christ is Lord. That is to say, he was human like the rest of us, not God. God just chose him to be his prophet for the last age. People who believe this way, such as myself, that Bro. Branham was a man and not Lord and that branhamites go against EVERYTHING he preached deserve to be distinct from those scripture-twisters. Seriously, what we believe is not that crazy compared to branhamites. Perhaps I could add a section in myself? Does anyone object?--65.0.58.39 (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well said, i would love to do that and have proposed such on the article Branhamism but I have not had anyone to come to consensus with me and have lacked the documentary evidence to do it in a good way. Suggestions? Charles Edward 03:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The point about documentary evidence is very important. It is hardly an encyclopedia if the article just contains a mish mash of people's opinions. Perhaps this article would be better left to focus on William Branham himself and some of the other articles (EG 'Message of the Hour', 'Branhamism') be used to write more about doctrinal ideas Rev107 (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this article should focus on Branham himself rather than his followers. But there are definitely several distinct branches of his followers and that fact should at least be noted. I think so long a there is something that says "Branham's followers should not be viewed as monolithic as there are different interpretations of his doctrines by his followers" that it would be ok. Though I don't think it is nessecary to go into detail in this article about their differences, and why they are like they are, etc. Charles Edward 11:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that would be appropriate, though someone is likely to insert "citation needed" :)
I do think we should to try to avoid the bias inherent in the title of this discussion. Rev107 (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
{{It is interesting that someone put "citation needed" in between the "Serpent Seed "reference and the subsequent(take heed ) comment.This should be more descriptive in it's interpetation on this integral topic.This was one of the first critical revelations of mankind of the fall of man according to William Branham.This was a revelation much like the entire book of "Revelation "albeit from Gennisis. Keywords like forbidden fruit, partake therof,and an analogy of not just the literal partaking of fruit and more of the intercourse with the sexual nature (fornification)is paramount.Equally interesting is how beautiful the wiki illustrates the "Oneness" which I like to call "Jesus Only".The eloquent quote in this article of names of Jesus appeared more in the Old Testament I believe.One must remember Branham pulled heavily on Malachi chapter 4 also relied heavily on Christ's own words in the New Testament [John chapter 8 verse 57 -58] Christ answered "Before Abraham was I am" Thank God for the Lighthouse and Wiki as well.}}06:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)~
Articles about different factions or extremist beliefs among churches which claim Branham's name should probably go under the entries on Branhamism or Message Church. However, it will be difficult to find reliable third-party material, since Wikipedia says strictly "no original research", even if the information is factually accurate. Read carefully WP:NOR. I have been reading over the edit history and discussion sections, and the problem of "original research" and "reliable sources" as being two areas we need to watch for. EricP (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You may be interested to read the discussion in section 12 (Newspaper reports of William Branham's death) which deals with this question. Rev107 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Father illiterate?

I have removed the word illiterate it implies that he could not read. I can not find anything to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.197.39 (talk) 04:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had a quick flip through several books (A Man Sent From God, Twentieth Century Prophet, All Things Are Possible, The Healer-Prophet) and I cannot find anything to support that either. There may be something in William Branham's recorded sermons but I am not aware of it. Rev107 (talk) 11:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The most I have come across is the following comment but that does not mean his father was completely unable to read or write ... I also have trouble understanding insurance policies! Rev107 (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A company beat my poor old dad, one time, out of a lot, and 'cause he was too illiterate to read the policy.(Melchisedec, 55-0109M, E38)
I think Branham meant illiterate in a generally uneducated sense, not in the sense that he could not read or write. Branham was never very good with grammar and vocabulary.Cool10191 (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Two distinct sections for topic

There are two sections under this topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Branham and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Branham

The first is suppose to redirect but it does not. Also edits only go to the second section and are not reflected to the first. If you search on "William Branham" you get the FIRST SECTION. Users who are looking up this topic are viewing a flawed topic that can not be edited. What is wrong with Wikipedia? Was this done on purpose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.176.24 (talk) 01:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh? If you search For "William Branham" on Wikipedia, you (I do, at least) get redirected to William M. Branham, as intended. I don't understand what the problem is. The redirect works fine for me and hasn't been altered in 3 years. Someguy1221 01:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Same here. Works fine. :) Strawberry Island 19:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


John Kennah will never believe it but what happened was that Wiliam Branham was on Sunset Mtn. picking at a sticker on his pant which reminded him that he had seen himself doing just that , just seconds before the blast and being picked up into a group of seven Angels. At that precise moment he was up in the sky in a Cloud. He was not on the ground hunting. He was not even on the earth at that moment in time. He was somewhere surrounded by Angels. Instantly he was transported back to March 8, 1963 and not till a few months later did he see the Cloud in the Life magazine and realize that it was the same strange Cloud that he had been enveloped in. He never said he was in that Cloud on Feb 28, 1963. Life magazine and other magazines took the photo on that day but that Cloud did not form instantly. It had formed over time...maybe hours, maybe a few days...the prophet said it came up from the south towards Mexico and Tucson. So, it's not a contradiction but a misunderstanding on the part of people that do not take the time or make the effort to read all that William Branham said about that Cloud of seven Angels. People are so busy arguing over it that they miss the whole point of what It was and why It appeared. For more information go to www.branham.org on their Message Infobase Search. G. __________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.22.226 (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me more like Personal opinion at Kennah's site. I have heard of this controversy before. This is about the mysterious cloud over Arizona in the winter of 1963. The exact date of the cloud is believed to be the evening of February 28th 1963, but the articles where written several months after, with the possibility of a flaw. The hunting season referred to is also disputed. Many hunters where allowed to hunt early as part of a raffle at that time, exact dates, unknown. I don’t believe Brother Branham kept up to date and time blogs on his personal laptop (with precision date-time) on the local internet either. I am researching the cloud and will create an article on wikipedia when I have all the facts with references strait. For now I believe we should remove the link. BTW I am going to call the Arizona game and fishing to find out the dates for hog hunting during the 1343 season. I am sure they have very good records that go back that far. Or perhaps the guy answering the phone will just tell me the dates they will be next year and assume they where the same then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.36.13 (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Source http://nt.scbbs.com/cgi-bin/om_isapi.dll?infobase=message2006.nfo&softpage=Browse_Frame_Pg42

Brother Branham preached in Arizona on February 23rd 1963. The cloud appeared on February 28th, 1963. Brother Branham preached in Houston TX March 3rd 1963, “ON HIS WAY BACK TO INDIANA”

The Department of Arizona Game and fish records go back to 1971. I believe we have established there is no discrepancy in the dates. This guy is a crack-pot. Link removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.36.13 (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)



I have reinstated the John Kennah link. I believe this article must allow the critics to be represented. Many of the references I have included relate the personal beliefs and opinions of those who follow William Branham. I have also included several critics in the reference section: Strom, Reckart, Pement, Pohl & Cloud, Koch, and Weaver. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement for our beliefs. If it is the Truth, it will stand for itself, so why be afraid of critics. Those who are interested will come across contradictory attitudes and opinions sooner or later. To avoid all reference to negative comments seems to indicate that we are afraid of criticism. Kennah is clearly identified in the external link as a "former follower". The guy is not a crack-pot, he is intelligent and well-informed ... although I believe him to be completely wrong in his understanding.
As for the "cloud" itself, there are different opinions among Message believers as to the date William Branham was hunting there. Only Believe magazine (June 1992, p7) places the event on March 8, 1963.
See "I had to go to Houston ..."
Rev107 12:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Missing talk page discussion

I noticed that a bunch of discussion was removed from this page on Sep 26, 2007. Any reason why this was done? Strawberry Island 23:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Just click 'archives-show' above. Reinstate them if you wish. Rev107 05:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The ones I'm speaking of aren't in the archives. It's ok... not a big deal... was just wondering why... :) Thanks for all the work you are doing on this page. Looks good. Strawberry Island 16:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
The ones I removed were either topics I'd started or topics that had got a bit heated and run their course ... imho! I suppose they really should have been archived instead. How do I do that? Rev107 05:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, everything should be archived. Do a search in the help section of Wikipedia about how to do this. It's pretty simple and they have good directions. If you can't find it let me know. (On a side note you shouldn't delete things from other peoples talk pages (unless it's typo corrections, etc.). It was fine what you did on my page (I don't mind/care) but others could get all huffy about it and I wouldn't want to see something go wrong with doing that on other peoples pages. Just an FYI.) Strawberry Island (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be no end to the number of things I can do wrong  :) Rev107 (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

California Earthquake

I have deleted a comment about 95% of one church leaving California because I have searched the reference that someone gave for that information, and cannot find that statement. The reference given was Eulogy in Memorial Service #1, Phoenix Arizona, 25 January 1966. The addresses of the speakers at that service can be read at Memorial Service, Jan 26, 1966. I don't think the detail adds anything to the article, but should someone want to reinstate it, please state who made the comment when citing the reference.
Rev107 05:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Good thought agree. Let's cite sources then this article becomes credible. :) Strawberry Island (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Photographs

It is disappointing to see the photographs removed from the article - they were placed there by Nswinton (who is not a follower of William Branham) on 11 April 2007. I do not know how to contact the "owner" of these photos but I have emailed Voice of God Recordings and Bible Belivers to ask for help. I wonder if anyone else is able to assist? Rev107 04:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a large collection of good quality photographs. Which photos specifically do you want? SplinterCell37 09:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer - the main problem seems to be satisfying WP ediors that the photos are free of copyright. I did not place the original photos, so if you feel so inclined, insert whichever ones you wish. Rev107 (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, were did all the photos go? I have a collection of ORIGINALS taken by a minister in his meetings. I could get access to them and try to upload some. He also has access to about 5-6 hours of home video of branham at his farm on different occasions. These are all on ancient reel to reel stuff. Wonder if I could get that off. The minister who owned them is dead and they belong to his church now. There are no copy rights on any of it.

FYI in the State of Indiana, were branham is from, you own the copyright to anything you say. That is how the Branham family has kept ownership of all of branhams tapes and magazines. It is also why they oppose an edited for form of his magazines, because then they are not his exact words and then copyright goes away.Cool10191 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find the situation is that across America and around the world people have been doing their own thing with the audio sermons and transcripts for a long time without any interference. Out of courtesy I asked his family if the removed photos could be replaced and they gave their immediate consent. How to satisfy the WP editors is the problem we face here. Rev107 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I do agree with you. I don't think anyone is opposed to stopping the free flow of Branham's sermons. But I do think it can be shown that they want the legal copyright to remain in their hands. Cool10191 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The people at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions should be able to assist. Pairadox (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Six (or Seven) Seals

Do you think it would be good to add a statement or paragraph in the doctrines area on Branham's teachings on the seven the seals? Many of his followers consider this to be the most important of all his revelations, because it is something "new" that was not known to the original church. It is something they consider uniquely their's. Whereas all his other teachings they believe where at one point known among Christians in times past. I think it would be worth adding.Cool10191 (talk) 15:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I consider it this way. One should consider that the viewer might not never of heard of this man before. They can be in some respects neutral and in the back of their mind always wondered about Revelations and it's meaning. William M. Branham acted as an instrument to bring God's word. Any fact that would bring someone light to the gospel of Christ that William Branham brought should be posted. It could be done in a way that brings the viewer more interest to study. Say for example when an encyclopedia gives a short little blurb on an artist. It will in fact give little sections to works created. So in this manner I think little subsections on "works created might be in order" Or specific messages preached. Another section could be the parallel between the John the Baptist and William Branham.

William Branham said to study ones motives. If it is for money or personal gain then I would say that working on this article is wrong. A motive of giving the viewer a chance to read "who" this man "was" and likewise pointing people to Christ is wholesome and well. There is a sermon where William Branham talked of a bearded man promoting William Branham sermons with pamphlets. When William Branham saw him, the man was ashamed of himself because of his appearance etc. William Branham gave him a hug and called him brother. So if this is in fact our motive and God be for us, Who can be against us. Just draw the circle bigger and let God weed them out. We must be careful as we may not know what spirit we bring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.120.38 (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph

" Today, he is considered a Scriptural prophet by those Christians around the world who believe that his ministry and teachings were supernaturally vindicated by God." - what does this mean? Surely there is a less P O V way of putting this? Should this really be the second sentence, as it is only true for a small minority of people, and not a major life issue? Its no doubt an important fact, that some consider him a prophet, but lets put it in a comprehensible way somewhere lower down.Hyper3 (talk) 12:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

That William Branham was a prophet (in the sense that he was used by God to reveal the true understanding of the Bible) is not only the most important point for those who accept his teachings, but also the most controversial point for those who criticise his ministry. Therefore I think the comment deserves prominence in the opening paragraph. Rev107 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Vindicated is a term used by Rev. Lee Vayle. He is right to use this term. It is the way God shows that the man talking is of God. Like Moses throwing down his rod and it turning to a snake and Jesus speaking of the works that testify of Him. Vindication is very important. Ask any old timer who attended a William Branham meeting. There was nothing that could compare to what was operating there. The old testament is full of Prophets that foretold the future and come with judgement. Take Jonah for example, why else would the people of ninevah repent. Think about it, if a smelly old man came into your town and said repent, would you? What if your town worshiped a God of the sea? And this smelly old man come from the mouth of a fish. Totally different. When people saw William Branham discern there was no mistake what they saw was real. The fact that they turned him down brings judgement. So getting to the part where you asked "what does this mean?" It means that he had a supernatural connection that told him what to say. When he said it, it come to pass. As this is so, this vindicates him. People will argue on points of 1977 being the rapture etc. I would sit back and take a referance sample of at least 30 times where William Branham said "Thus saith the Lord" I would compare these statements to the events that followed. I would be certain that they already happened. I would make this a gage for the events to follow. And bet my life on it that they will follow. There are no odds here. It is guarenteed. Hense the term-Vindicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.120.38 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


Yes, while it's true that some believers hoped that William Branham would come back to life, it is also true that William Branham's wife was hospitalized for many months and wasn't sure where her husband should be buried, thus the actual burial was delayed. No big mystery there. Instead of looking at one view or reading a newspapers account of what one man reported, why not go to the source of all answers at www.branham.org and ask your question to those who would actually know the answer to any question related to William Branham. __________________________________________________________ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.1.22.226 (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Needs third party sources

The majority of this article is sourced by works from Branham or from sympathetic sources. This is not acceptable. It needs WP:RS from third parties. Tgreach (talk) 08:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Do such sources exist? I am aware of only limited third party sources. Many of the sources used are primary sources too, which do have some value. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy is to use reliable, third-party, published sources. On the other hand, "Primary sources are considered reliable for basic statements of fact ... Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion." The article violates these issues and appears to be a gushing endorsement of claims made by Branham and his supporters.
Sources such as newspapers and critiques certainly do exist.
The majority of the references come from Branham and/or sympathetic biographers. The article violates WP:NPOV. Further, "Claims of supernatural intervention" gives WP:DUE via weasel words to faith healing and the supernatural. That is there has never been a double-blinded test to confirm faith healing or demonstrate that it exists. Thus, we must becareful in how it is presented.Tgreach (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
For example this article claims he was not buried for four months "allow for Mrs Branham to fully recover from her injuries sustained in the car accident." This is completely false. In google news archives there are several articles reporting Easter 1966 on Branham's supporters believing he will come back to life, but being wrong. Nurmerous papers including the Corpus Christi Times, Florence Morning News, Nevada State Journal (Reno, Nevada), Independent Press-Telegram (Long Beach, California), Fresno Bee Republican (Fresno, California) and others all reported that he wasn't buried because his followers claimed he was going to be risen from the dead. 700 supporters gathered to see, but when he didnt, he was buried in Indiana. This just goes to show that we need to remove all self-published websourcing.
Other articles include Branham claiming he was photographed (Douglas Studio in Houston, TX in 1950) with a halo over his head with skeptics voicing their criticism. News worthy events from independent sources need inclusion. And claims sourced to Branham/followers need to be sparingly used. Tgreach (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It has been shown with regard to William Branham's daughter "Marie" (supposedly killed in the car crash) that newspapers are subject to error and bias. For the sake of fairness, the article should reflect the fact that Pearry Green refutes some of the comments that circulated in the media. Rev107 (talk) 07:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
PEARRY GREEN'S ACCOUNT Scroll to last part of this chapter from Pearry Green's book, beginning "This is Mr. Brown of the United Press International (UPI), Louisville," he answered, then abruptly asked, "Aren't you people expecting William Branham to rise on Easter morning?" Rev107 (talk · contribs)
Yes, papers do make mistakes. So do websites, which can be started by anyone and can post anything. Wikipedia policy is WP:RS and personal blogs/websites are not acceptable for obvious reasons. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
A website which provides direct quotes attributed to a person can be the most reliable source. In the "Doctrine" section of this article someone has tagged as an "unreliable source" websites which provide William Branham's exact words in the full context in which they were made (ie, the full transcript of a spoken sermon, plus the full text of a book he authored). Rev107 (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves. WP:V WP:RS Rev107 (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Coming to this page from WP:EAR, there seem to be quite a number of self-published sources here. I'd include seekyethetruth.com, bridemessage.org, branhamrefutation.blogspot.ca. Such sites as bibleway.org, messagechurch.org, evanghelia.ro, "The Message 2010 Internet Release", http://wmb1.com/, branham.org also seem questionable. I suggest that they should generally be removed unless and until reliable third-party sources can be found. Any disputed facts should only be included in this article if they are unambiguously sourced to reliable publications, and in particular any points about e.g accuracy of prophecies should be referenced to third-party sources.

I suppose that these sources (which concentrate heavily on doctrine and are reliable sources for the doctrines of their authors) could be quoted for the fact that some people disagree with parts of Branham's doctrinal message. However, I do not think that NPOV requires anything more than a sentence to this effect, with references.

I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The more material available here informs the studying individual.

"Often when in a library I would have to dig and dig for a small morsel of information. With the internet we can make use of our collective study to give the viewer an accurate view of who William Branham was. The more examples we can put up the more people can really see who this man was. I have put back the part about God being the Same Yesterday, Today and forever because it is important to see that this man stood out.

My father-in-law went to a tent meeting of William Branhams. My Father-in-law remarked that William Branham stood out as different from the others. It is important for this article on "wiki" for people to see this. Try walking into a pentecostal church and bring up William Branhams name. This man was rejected for what he taught. And what he taught should not be buried." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.113.15 (talk • contribs)

The article must be contain all significant views/facts about Branham from WP:RS. The main issue with the article right now it is is based too heavily on material by Branham. Personal expierence, such as you father-in-law, is WP:OR and cannot be included. BBiiis08 (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


I don't think I understand, You say that the article has too much material by Branham. And third party is no good. Then Why is it that reliable information about him is constantly being deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.105.134 (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you and I both know the real reason that occurs, but BBiiis08 has a good point ... this is supposed to be an encyclopedia so must conform to the rules of that convention. Even so, it is a "cyberspace encyclopedia" and therefore should exploit all the sources available to such. Websites, which provide the original quotes of comments referenced in the article, are very useful because they can provide the full context. Rev107 (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper Reports of William Branham's Death

All these quotes come from newspapers that have been used as references in this article:
Corpus Christi Times: Burial was postponed until Mrs Branham, who was in the accident, had recovered from her injuries. The Fresno Bee: The burial was postponed to allow Branham's widow to attend. She was seriously injured in the accident which claimed her husband's life. Anderson Daily Bulletin: An estimated crowd of 700 tuned out for the funeral of "Brother Billy", delayed until Monday because of a selection for a burial site, and because his wife, injured in the Texas crash, was hospitalized until recently. Florence Morning News: Some of the minister's followers predicted he would return to life during Easter but Branham's son said the international faith founded by his father, did not teach this. The Fresno Bee: Billy Paul Branham, the minister's oldest son who is active in the faith, said it taught nothing about an Easter resurrection for his father. Northwest Arkansas Times: There were some among the crowd of mourners who had predicted Branham would raise from the dead during the Easter season, but the minister's oldest son, Billy, said the faith taught nothing about a resurrection. Young Branham said there were several reasons for the delay in the funeral services, among them the decision on a place of burial. Rev107 (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because your additions added text not supported by the sources. Feel free to add that information in new sentences with WP:RS. However, as it stood it gave the reader the impression that your additions were in the sources when they were not. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Any changes I made come directly from the sources quoted. You wiil need to be very specific and support your edit by direct reference to the newspapers concerned. I have printouts of each newspaper article in front of me as I write. I have quoted from the sources in the first para in this section of the discussion to show that my additions are taken directly from the sources. Because you have not supported your edit with quotes as I have, I feel I have the right to undo your edit. Please feel free to discuss this matter further on this page with specific reference to each of the sources quoted, and point out exactly where I have added information not contained in the sources. Rev107 (talk) 05:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I looked for "his father did not teach this" in the first source and did not see it. From the history of the article containing poor sources and incorrect statements, I thought that edit was in line with that.
Another issue that concerns this article is the self-published sources. They need to be removed as they are dragging the quality of the article down. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The first source used (Northwest Arkansas Times, 12 April, 1966) contains the statement: the minister's oldest son, Billy, said the faith taught nothing about a resurrection. (This of course is inaccurate in that along with every other Christian church, the resurrection of the dead is most certainly taught!)
When self published sources are used ALONE to try to prove a fact, I agree with you. When a self published source is used to substantiate what a person has said or believes, then it is surely the best source. William Branham was a controversial Bible Teacher. The best way to show what he taught is to link directly to one of his books, or to some of the many transcripts of recorded sermons, where comments can be seen in their full context. A further point to consider is that some of the websites published by those sympathetic to this faith reproduce documents from secondary sources. Rev107 (talk) 08:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
"some of the websites published by those sympathetic to this faith reproduce documents from secondary sources". That is one of my concerns, see below. BBiiis08 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Rev107 on this one. If we are going to quote the newspapers that are known to be inaccurate, that inaccuracy needs to be pointed out. Biis08, I think you may misunderstand WP:Souces, which is a guideline, and not a policy. Primary and tertiary sources are in some instances acceptable and even desirable. Third party sources are always desirable, but only need when interpreting facts from primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY. In religion related articles, primary sources regularly used and accepted. In general, the only people who document beleif systems are those that beleive them. Just as the catholic related articles are sourced from works of catholic preists, and mormon articles are sourced from the book of Mormon and the other writing of Brigham and Smith. Charles Edward (Talk) 13:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Charles Edward, read WP:RS, in particular WP:Verifiability#Self-published_sources ("This is an official English Wikipedia policy") is clear:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Bolding is in the original. The ENTIRE section of "Location and Size of Following" fails this. Was Green's work previously "published by reliable third-party publications"? I see one work listed by Pearry Green, which is self-published by his church. But that is the least of the issues here. You need more third party sources.
Wheras, a sentence claims healings were reported in "local newspapers," but one of the sources is The Voice of Healing magazine, not a local paper. (Voice of Healing is self-published by a publicist for Branham--according to the article.) (Hundreds Testify To Being Cured in Branham Tour, The Voice of Healing, February 1952) posted by godsgenerals.com drags down the quality of the article. Your source is from a pro-faith healing website's upload of a 1951 Branham-related publication about local press articles in the 1950s about Branham. A good source would be a Los Angeles Times article making a healing claim. A clear-cut RS to support the statements in the article.
Another for source a "miracle" was posted at http://healingandrevival.com/BranhamNov111951.jpg with a citation of "Durban Daily Tribune" (1951). I see no hits for such a paper in google or news.google.com or mention that such a paper existed. The only thing that comes close is a South Africa paper called Daily News (Durban). Then when one reads the uncritical article, there is no medical expertise (note the word "miracle" is in scare quotes), but cites the boy's mother opinion immediately after the meeting on him walking. So you have a mother opinion with no medical diagnosis from 1951 and no follow-up from a newspaper that no longer exists. To top it off, the article doesn't even say what disease/foot problem the boy was cured of! As WP:RS says:

For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment.

When making assertations on miracles, which this wikipedia article claims were widely reported, there must better quality sources than Branham-related publications and hard-to-find uncritical lacking medical expertise-publications. That is the problem using material from healingandrevival.com and other types of unreliable websites. BBiiis08 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I do not disagree with parts of your arugment. But please also read WP:PRIMARY, which is also a policy. There is a difference between self published and primary sources as they are treated by policy. Books and websites that are not published by the author are not self-published. Again you are avoiding my primary statement. Please also read the policy WP:IAR. Consensus can trump policy at any time. It is commonly accepted by consensus that primary sources are acceptable on religious related articles. You cannot provide an authoritative source on Branhamism anymore than I can, can you? Using handpicked isolated sources from here and there is a violation of WP:SYN. I am well aware of wikipedia policy. Please discuss any more major changes on this talk page before you implement them so we can work them out. I agree that there are areas of this article that can be improved with better referencing a more abstract approach to the topic. Charles Edward (Talk) 20:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
From WP:PRIMARY: "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." I agree with this policy and this article need more secondary sources. Green's book, for instance, is self-published. And thus, it should be removed along with the sources I mentioned above. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Christian Men's Buisness Association was the publisher of many of branham works, and they were an authoritative and well repsected group in the 1950s, 60s and 70s and still today. They are well respected in Christian circles and many of their works are commonly used by different Christian groups. Would you accept things published by them as reliable? Charles Edward (Talk) 20:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem confused. I think we should use more secondary sources and use Branham's work/words carefully. All other self-published material, his healing magazine and Green's work, which I discussed above, should be removed. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I am not confused, I believe you are. I agree with using the primary sources carefully. "Branham's healing magazine" was not self published, it was financed and published by the Christian Buisness Mens Assocation. I disagree with removing all the sources and content you are suggesting that we should, because then we would have no article.. I believe it would be fair to rework sections if other authoritative sources can be located. As you quoted from the WP:PRIMARY, articles should rely primarily on third-party sources. But in their absence or scarity, primary sources are acceptable in many circumstances. Charles Edward (Talk) 00:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
BBiiis08: The book by Pearry Green is used only once as a reference, and it presents his view of what happened at the time of the death and burial of William Branham. He is of the opinion that the newpapers misquoted him and did not report the facts accurately. Surely you do not disallow the man a chance to defend himself against what he feels are incorrect statements. That is the only reason I have inserted the reference link to Green's book. "The Healer-Prophet" (C D Weaver, Mercer University Press, 2000) lends support to Green's account: "Much of the resurrection talk was attributed to Pearry Green, though he denied the accusation." (p154). Another "scholarly" text on William Branham (D E Harrell, All Things are Possible: The Healing and Charismatic Revivals in Modern America,Indiana University Press, 1975) states: "Disciple Pearry Green later said that the delayed funeral was in deference to Mrs Branham, whose injuries had delayed her decision on a burial site" (p164). Both of these authors have raised concerns about the accuracy of the newspaper reports. Weaver says "The press conjectured ...", while Harrell says "The press reported, and perhaps distorted ...". It seems all newspaper reports (including pro-Branham ones) may be subject to bias and error! Rev107 (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia is not interested in "truth" (see: WP:V). While you may think all the newspapers are errors, the issue is WP:V. Bad sources are self-published material. Green could write anything and publish it decades later. Read what I quoted from policy above. The latest citation about Green is much more acceptable. Thank you for moving this forward. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Charles: I do not think it alters the force of your arguments, but I need to point out that "The Voice of Healing", edited by Gordon Lindsay, commenced in 1948 and was a different publication to "The Full Gospel Men's Voice". VOH did in fact start as a way of publicising William Branham's ministry but soon became an independent magazine as differences between Branham and Lindsay emerged. FGMV (later FGBMV), the official organ of the Full Gospel Businessmen's Fellowship, started in 1953. Both these magazines are referred to frequently by Weaver and Harrell.Rev107 (talk)
Rev107, I think it does. The article says "Gordon Lindsay proved to be an able publicist for Branham, founding The Voice of Healing magazine in 1948 which was originally aimed at reporting on Branham's healing campaigns." It is not a WP:RS or even unbias source. Charles Edward, if I am "confused" then so is the article. Lastly, your opinion doesn't matter. Primary sources, bring down the quality of the article, and should be used in substitution for third-party sources. The article is so poorly done and that's partly why. BBiiis08 (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
It is not my opinion that primary sources are acceptable in some cases, policy allows for their use. It is my opinion that they are acceptable in this situation. For example, on the article Bill Clinton, primary sources are used, and noted as primary sources, for sourcing some of the things Clinton said and did. In the article Byzantine Empire - which is a featured article - primary sources written by partisans of the empire are used to establish things claimed by the authors of the works. These are just two examples of acceptable use of primary sources. If you search the policies, and articles, you will find many other examples. In religous articles, primary sources typically play an even larger role. In the article Roman Catholic Church there are a large number of critical works used, but there is also a large percentage of the source that are published by priests and church historians - which makes them primary and secondary sources. Charles Edward (Talk) 23:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
"Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience, or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves" WP:RS
"Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" WP:V. Rev107 (talk) 04:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"Supernatural Intervention"

The section called "Claims of Supernatural Intervention" was largely removed by an editor last year on the basis that it was mainly sourced from WB or those who supported his ministry. Events that his followers believe to be supernatural in origin form a very significant part of the Message movement. To omit all reference to certain well known events - also well known by critics - whether one believes them or not - is to omit an important part of the ministry of WB. In particular, the Pillar of Fire appearance on the Ohio River in 1933, the raising of Kari Holma from the dead, and the appearance of seven angels on Sunset Mountain. I intend to reintroduce these events to the article, while attempting to use objective language. Rev107 (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

1977

I have inserted a direct quote by WB from the Church Ages book. I think this is important because people have come up with a variety of interpretations based on WB's comments about 1977. I feel it is better to let the man speak for himself and omit editors' personal observations. Rev107 (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Doctrine

A sentence in the middle of a paragraph clearly written by a follower of Branham contains these sentences: "Branham preached that the Bible says a woman is the "weaker vessel" and he taught them that as Christians, they should wear modest clothing, keep their hair uncut, not preach, and be obedient to their husbands. Men should take their role as head of the house. Branham based these beliefs on what is actually written in the Scripture and not on any church dogmas or theology." 1) The second sentence misunderstands the concepts of dogma and theology. 2)The sentence is fundamentally unhelpful in other regards, since most dogma and theology is based on the text of Scripture. It may be more helpful to say something like "Branham based these beliefs on a literal reading of certain passages of the New Testament." Or better yet, find the particular passages he cites, then put in the reference to his views! The second part of the sentence is essentially rhetoric designed to disparage other ideas. Elsteve9 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC) Stephen

I agree with your comment: It may be more helpful to say something like "Branham based these beliefs on a literal reading of certain passages of the New Testament." Rev107 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)



An anonymous editor(s?) has been adding unreferenced personal opinions to the introduction of the doctrine section, which I have now deleted as attempts to communicate with these editors have failed. There are various interpretations of some of William Branham's teachings so it is important that this section be kept as general as possible, and that all comments are substantiated by appropriate references. Rev107 (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


You deleted actual words spoken by william branham. Other words by william branham were "question your motives". I am curious of your motives. Are you ashamed of him? Simple word searchs would show up what you deleted. It is a good thing this isn't the bible. I would recommend some Due Diligence. Perhaps after some research you might put it back and spare me the work.

There is an expectation that all editors contributing to an article in Wikipedia should be willing to do the necessary work to substantiate their comments by appropriate references.
It would help if I knew exactly which sentences you were referring to (see here). The history records indicate different editors - or at least different computers. Signing in with an ID helps to resolve this problem, and provides a place to discuss issues as they arise, before any action is taken, as I attempted to do. Rev107 (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The "Doctrine" section has evolved over time with input from numerous authors adding, deleting, and rewriting. I don't necessarily agree with everything that has been said, nor do I think the ordering is the best, but this is the outline of the doctrine section at present:
  • 1. Source of doctrine;
  • 2. Seven Church Ages;
  • 3. Trinity vs Oneness;
  • 4. Discernment ministry;
  • 5. Infallibility of Scripture;
  • 6. Serpent Seed;
  • 7. Seven major prophecies (including 1977);
  • 8. Denominationalism;
  • 9. "three" Bibles
When adding further comments (Seven Seals and Baptism of the Holy Spirit are major omissions) I think we should try to maintain an order of some sort and not just tack comments onto existing paragraphs - unless of course they are meant to elaborate that particular subject.
I also think it is preferable to keep comments as general as possible and then provide link-refences to William Branham's own words. This way differences in interpretation will not cause conflict. Rev107 (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that would be the best way to explain his teachings. And by keeping this in an order makes for a better reading. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

by omiting that words like judgement and vindication, it appears as though you are watering down who he was. What he brought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.117.232 (talk) 04:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add paragraphs on these topics you are free to do so. Just makes sure your comments are grammatically correct and properly referenced. You should log on and sign your comments ... unless you are ashamed to be identified as a believer :) Rev107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC).
You also have to remember that this is an encyclopedia article, and must be written in a neutral manner. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is my response, Please help me with paragraphing my reply, it reads well in edit form but moves across the screen in some quotes. After typing the response below I see your motives and think that any tensions that existed should be moot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.117.232 (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are my motives. Put yourself in the shoes of the woman at the well. According to "Bro. Branham" Who was she and what did she believe? This is the type of people who will be reading this type of material on Bro. Branham.
People who were like the people of ninevah. They won't be ultra-educated. They will be people thirsting and looking for God. Bro. Branham said the the reason why the woman at the well was how she was, was because of her parents. They let her go out at night. (reference at end of this) He also said she read her bible. He also said that in comparison to the woman at the well, the priests were well learned men. White on the outside but black on the inside. He said she (the woman at the well) was black on the outside and had a little bit of light on the inside. As this is the case brothers, We must be mindful that people seeking who Bro Branham was and what he taught just might be like the woman at the well. They might be seeking truth. They might be seeking God. So as Brother Branham said that the prophets are the manifested words of God. Perhaps this is how they might find God. So it behooves us to take on their shoes. Take on their sins.

James the fifth chapter. Consider that just maybe we could be sinners without the grace of God. With this in mind perhaps we might agree to present doctrine so that the woman at the well would be satisfied. Jesus knew that she wanted water. So this is what she was offered. So I propose we present water. Brother Branham presented the words of the woman at the well saying "I preceive that you are a prophet.." So the Doctrine should start with the Doctrine he spoke of. Doctrine speaking of prophets. I now see by writing this why you removed what I wrote. I also agree with pointing people to the material. Who brother Branham was is not doctrine as church people see it. But if you look at Bro. Branhams doctrine with the understanding of vindication, you know longer need to wonder or guess at the thing. So in the sermon "spoken word is original seed" he states,

Now lets break up this quote and qualify his poor grammer. A real prophet can't claim he is a prophet. Now when he states playing it back, lets ponder the fact that this was God talking through the man, Cause if you scroll up in the message he talked about reading their thoughts. Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
As for being a judgement prophet he also states in spoken word is original seed, John 1:1 states 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. So perhaps we can say the "mind reading" was God. Now we can go back to the thought of the woman at the well. But instead lets think on the fact he was a Judgement prophet.

Same quote above continued below,

Now how can a man who is just a teacher talk like this. You can't even use the term prophet. You would have to include "judgement" prophet." Just do a word search on how many times he uses the word warning. (Like Jonah at ninevah)

Now you see a little bit of doctrine I would like to include in the section Doctrine. As far as being ashamed, let me tell you how ashamed I am. I am ashamed that in the light of a Judgement prophet, I do not live like Christ. This is my desire. And part of my desire is like that of the woman at the well and also Christ her Brother is to help and nurture people to Christ. (she ran into the city to tell them) So it seems that we all have the same motive like brother Branham said in the sermon Doors in Door

So I see we are brothers and where you can see my grammer is bad and my quoting not real skillful, I would apreciate it if you brothers could redo my poor attempt. Including what I mentioned above in a more skillful manner. The following are woman at the well quotes by Bro Branham that are great indicators of who he was. I don't mean to say he was Christ. I am saying he is stating that God is here just like back then.

Jesus Christ, the Same Yesterday, Today and Forever, 1963, para E59 - E73 When I first found this wikipedia I saw people claiming that Brother Branham was oneness. I saw things that horrified me. I am not a preacher. I am a nobody. I somehow though cannot sit back and let people claim Brother branham to be what he is not. Brothers I see you have the same zeal. Then please rewrite what was omited in a manner that would be breif and salty and really use this page as an encyclopedia writen by saints. I will meet you on the other side and perhaps we will share a reward like the dream a man told Branham; He stood for Christ and now Christ will stand for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.117.232 (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is not written primarily by or for believers - it is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article about William Branham (as in Britannica or Americana but more detailed). Many of the people who have contributed to the article are not Message believers and some are even severe critics of William Branham.
If you add anything that is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines someone will edit or delete it. If you set up your own ID & talk page (see here), I will try to help you add what you think is appropriate. Read the paragraph beginning:Branham believed that his ministry was to declare that God was here as in the days of Abraham. I think it may address some of the issues you are interested in.
I would advise you to remove the quotes from your last response - long quotes are not appreciated by editors! If you go to my talk page, you can add as many quotes & comments as you like :) Rev107 (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who added the Abraham part. I feel that the Job part is also vital.

I would like to discuss this with you at greater length on my talk page Rev107 (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at this, I cut this from the quote above (E70). He uses God-prophet. Then as if to show you more light he uses the term Holy spirit. One could easily flip to thinking William Branham is teaching oneness but you go back up a few verses and you see he is giving all the glory to God as it should be given. (E68 & E69) See him making a difference with the man Jesus verses the God who dwelt in him. Yet he points out that it is God and only one God all along. We need to use this in an abreviated form to show Brother Branhams view on the Godhead. I still see the first paragragh as very confusing to the reader trying to study. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.254.172 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Doctrine: Trinity vs Oneness

Following the discussion above ("Doctrine") I have rewritten the section on the Godhead. I have tried to use WB's own words and use reference-links to the Church Age book, as that book was specifically written to explain the Godhead, among other things (see Introduction CAB). I have included mention of the fact that WB did not agree with the Pentecostal Oneness Church and given link-references to show how he disagreed. I hope this will satisfy all, or at least most, as there has been continual tinkering with this section over the years as people try to have their own particular viewpoint included. If there are any alterations or additions anyone would like to make, I hope we can discuss them here first. Rev107 (talk) 09:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I read this and think, wow, The section is a little better. Well done. Trinitarians usually convert to Oneness and miss the mark. This paragraph one Godhead seems to make people thirst and to read more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.186.17 (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I have also found it to be a little off balance. I have added a quote that seems to bring it in balance. Using William branhams own words like an encyclopedia would give a picture or excerp gives the section backbone. Once again, well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.186.17 (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I would have preferred you used a quote from the CAB because that was specifically written to explain the Godhead, as WMB stated in the introduction. WMB also wanted the CAB to be used in the public arena - that's why he had it "grammarised". Even better, would have been a simple sentence with the reference-link provided. As your edit now stands it does not accord with WP guidelines and probably will be edited. Rev107 (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no problem with people updating and making this article better. I have an idea. The CAB as you put it was grammarised by Rev Lee Vayle. Believe it or not he is still alive. I do believe that WMB did say if you have a question about doctrine ask LV about it. I know for a fact that LV stands behind a minister who learned under LV. Talk with him, There is a good chance he could have LV talk with you on this article. That would be the thing. I like this article and how you guard it. People have something to read for reasearch. Especially about the Abraham part. LV brought that out. And when you listen to the sermons you begin to understand WMB's lingo. My best to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.196.128 (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am familiar with the teaching of Lee Vayle and have had contact with Brian Kokourec. I respect both men but their view of the Father and Son as separate beings (sometimes called "Two Lords"), is a minority view among Message believers, and is not evident in the CAB. I think the article should not reflect my views or yours, or any particular person, but try to broadly represent what there is substantial agreement upon. Rev107 (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I see, where you would have problems writing about the Godhead. I need to think on this. They are two seperate beings. The scripture says it plainly. I need to think on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.250.152 (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 



Lets discuss this;

SHOW US THE FATHER IT'LL SATISFY 56-0422 E-36 Now, it's many times it's been said that no man can see God at anytime, the Bible said so. But the only begotten of the Father has declared Him. Philip, here was very inquisitive; he wanted to see the Father. Says here He said, "I've been so long with you, Philip, and you don't know Me?" Said, "When you see Me you see My Father." In other words, you see the Father express Hisself through the Son. Him and the Father were one in the sense that His Father was dwelling in Him, not Him doing the works; He was a Son, Himself, the immortal, virgin born, Son of God. And then in Him was dwelling the God the Father, expressing Hisself to the world, His attitude towards the people. See? Well, that's how Christ and God were one. God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Now, He said, "When you see Me, you see the Father, and why do you say, 'Show us the Father?'

Can you not see two beings here?

I ask you this. Do you take the scripture literal when is says only begotten? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.182.15 (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The article is not about what I believe is true, or what you believe is true, it is about what is generally held to be true by most Message believers. I think the article reflects a broad base consensus. Over the years, the article has been edited by those wishing to include their particular point of view - it always leads to an editing war - we need to allow the article to show what is agreed upon broadly among most Message believers. There are ample references for people to follow up and do further study if they are interested.
If you want to discuss what I personally believe it would be more appropriate to do it on my talk page Rev107 (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Quotes

Quotes are used very sparingly in WP articles. The Godhead section in "Doctrine" contains a long quote, and so its inclusion needs to be justified. An eight line quote in WP articles is substantial, and not "tiny" as the editor has suggested. A quote regarding 1977 (see above) was included to resolve the varying personal opinions being inserted in the article. It would be helpful if the person responsible for the quote in the Godhead section would explain why the quote should be included. I'm not sure if several editors are involved or just the one person as edits have been made anonymously. Rev107 (talk) 09:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


An alternative quote has been inserted concerning the Godhead. This is more in accord with the previous paragraph, and is more easily understood as it is taken from the Church Age book rather than a sermon transcript. WB produced the CAB as a source for public use. Rev107 (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is still needlessly wordy an a bit confusing to people, especially to readers unfamiliar with the topic. We could boil it down to a simple quote with expanded explanation. Something like:
Branham believed in "One God with three offices or manifestations." He emphasized the unity and singularity of God, while pointing to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as different manifestations of the same singular being.

What do you think? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds oneness. If you think that God died on the cross you contradict the bible. The Bible says God gave his only begotten Son. I understand that when you saw the man in the new testement you saw the very expression of God. But calling the flesh God is deceiving. I had the quotes just right a few years back. A person thirsting to know more about William Branham Doctrine could fill up his desire about the subject. Now you fellows cut it and watered it down. The quote where William Branham says "Not one like my finger" was removed. Sounds devious to me. The point is to understand god has a Son. That is risen from the dead. Not a dead God. A dead son. Abandoned and sent to hell. God never died. That should we die, there is salvation and resurrection just like the Son of God. Now when God was in Christ (His Son) he was reconciling the world to Himself. When Jesus the Son of God is In the New Jeruselem on the throne, you will be seeing the very expression of God. (Hebrews 1). Your fear is ruining the Doctrine Section. please do not cut things you do not understand. Just look close like William Branham said about the chicken vs chicken bone. (You folks are throwig away good chicken!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.41.213.83 (talk) 02:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

William Branham said the Church Age book was written with the general public in mind, and one of its main purposes was to explain his teaching on the Godhead. I think using links to quotes from the CAB are preferable to adding isolated quotes from sermons along with personal opinions. Rev107 (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Doctrine

I remove most of the Doctrine section and linked to Branhamism, which covers most of the same ground. I think this is consistent with Summary style. A somewhat longer summary might be ok, but I don't think this article should substantially duplicate the article devoted to his doctrines. (Also, it was almost all sourced to primary sources.) Mark Arsten (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The Doctrine section has been worked on by a number of different editors over several years. I think it would be most unfortunate for this work to be simply deleted. The most remarkable and controversial aspect about William Branham was his doctrine.
The use of primary sources in the Doctrine section of this article has been extensively discussed on this talk page, and I regard it as one of its strengths. The best source for validating the doctrinal statements of any individual must surely be that individual himself. Rev107 (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience, or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves WP:RS
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves WP:V.

NPOV

An edit of mine, which added to the NPOV nature of this article, was deleted rather than amended. As a result, I am now going to focus on a major revamp of this article to ensure that it follows the NPOV guidelines. I have reinstated the deleted comment and have flagged the article to indicate a dispute over POV.

Over the past couple of years a number of well researched ebooks and websites have come out that are critical of William Branham's claims and ministry, including:

The research behind these sources is significant and the information provided in them must be represented and referenced in this article in order for it to achieve NPOV status. My initial attempt to add a single reference to these materials was deleted. I am aware of other attempts to add these references which were also deleted.

My aim is not to get into a fight over this with those editors that have a message bias but to work with them to achieve consensus, if possible. Unfortunately, that will likely mean significant changes to the article from its current state, to add information and views from the sources referred to above. Guidelines exist for how to treat NPOV disputes on religion which are not presently being followed. Taxee (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


I second the above statements. The sites mentioned above place almost every section of this article into question. Unverified claims made by Branham are stated as fact, while research has proven most of these claims to be fiction.

The research from these websites, as well as the books and publications contained within must be included to provide a more accurate description of William M Branham.

We should review all of the guidelines, and follow them. Swiftredvette (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

The question of sources has been debated on this page before (here). Self published sources are not valid sources of information according to WP:V. The exception to this is the use of self published sources for information about themselves. This permits the inclusion of websites that represent the ministry of William Branham. The personal websites produced by Peter Duyzer, Nathan Rivera, Jeremy Bergen (BTS) and John Collins (STT) are all self published sources and therefore should be removed. WP:RS. particularly notes that self published sources that involve claims about third parties should not be used. Rev107 (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


On that basis, you should exclude VoG as it is the self-published info of the Branham family. If you want a fight then let's get at it and we will take this up the ladder to those that resolve disputes at WP. But to deny NPOV and disallow the questioning of Branham's claims is ludicrous. How do you want to deal with this? Taxee (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


Talk of a "fight" is not helpful. Please read the WP policy guidelines I linked to, as well as the previous discussion on this page I linked to (here). WP:V states that self published information by the party concerned is a valid source about itself, so VGR qualifies as a source. The first paragraph of the article lists a number of published sources that can be used. Rev107 (talk) 08:31, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


Swiftredvette, until the issue of the use of self published, personal websites and blogs is resolved, please refrain from using these sources. Carefully read the Wikipedia guidelines at WP:V and WP:RS. It is necessaary for you to justify the validity of the sources you are using based on Wikipedia guidelines. If an understanding cannot be reached, it will be necessary to report your edits to a Wikipedia mediator. Rev107 (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Rev107 - I appreciate that talk of a fight is not helpful but if you refuse to allow any compromise on this issue; if you refuse to allow any criticism of William Branham on this article; then a fight is what you are going to get. Taxee (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem here is that the sources being used are personal web pages and therefore contrary to the Wikipedia guidelines on self published material (WP:V and WP:RS). This is the issue that must be addressed.
I am not interested in fighting. If WP guidelines continue to be ignored, and personal web pages are not removed, then it will be necessary to refer the situation to a WP mediator. Rev107 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


List the edits you think are offside and lets discuss them. In many cases there may be other sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxee (talk • contribs) 06:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


The question remains - according to Wikipedia guidelines (WP:V and WP:RS) can the personal web pages you listed be cited as valid sources in the main article? You still have not addressed this issue.
A related issue is the permitted use of Message based web sites as sources of information about William Branmham's ministry: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves" Information from these sources can be qualified by "Branham claimed ...", or "Branham's followers believe ..." Rev107 (talk) 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

All of these websites etc. may be used, with appropriate qualifiers, as sources for their own views - if someone says "I believe X" then we may report that this person does believe X. This does not mean that these websites must be used, nor that they are appropriate for an encyclopaedic article on William M. Branham. The problems with this article go beyond the issue of sources and are seriously affecting its utility as an encyclopaedic introduction to the subject. There is far too much argument over doctrines and events - appropriately kept short here with a Main article link to Branhamism. I would summarize all of the criticism in a short section, three sentences at the most, perhaps (if appropriate sources can be found) something like: "His teaching and organization have been attacked by outsiders and by other Pentecostalists including persons brought up in Branhamite households. There are accusations that Branham reported inaccurate visions and facts, that he occasionally used astrology and pyramidology, and that his followers have used inappropriate social control. Some of his doctrines have also not found universal favour within the Pentecostal movement." NPOV does not require more - nor does a good encyclopaedic article. As an example of good encyclopaedic practice in an area that offers plenty of reliable sources for criticism of a faith, please see Islam#Criticism_of_Islam.
To expand and specify somewhat, such comments as "However, this vision appears to have been false as there is no record of anyone dying during the bridge's construction<ref>Kleber, John E., "The Encyclopedia of Louisville" (University Press of Kentucky, 2000)]</ref>." are WP:SYNTH and inappropriate. Even if a reliable source could be found that explicitly states that nobody ever fell off the Louisville Municipal Bridge, this comment would still be inappropriate. To insert something of this sort we would need a reliable source that tells us about the inaccuracy of Branham's vision, preferably putting in the context of what Branham himself meant by his report of the vision (since religious visions don't have to report consensus reality). The third-party websites cannot reasonably claim to be such sources. Similarly "It is believed that the "messengers" chosen by Branham support the argument that Larkin's dates were used since the lifespan of certain "messengers" was outside of their given church age. St [[Columba]], for example, lived from AD 521-597, while Branham's date for the Thyatirean church age was nine years after [[Columba]]'s death.<ref>[Collins, Seek The Truth, 2012]</ref>" is WP:SYNTH and should go. This may be accurately reporting the beliefs of the source, Collins, and it might be appropriate in an article on Collins, but it cannot form any part of a good article here. I am reluctant to edit this article myself, but I do encourage other editors to edit boldly. This article offers considerable scope for easy improvement, mainly by removing large amounts of inappropriate content.
I hope these comments help. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Richard. That was helpful and it sounds like a good pruning is in order. I will do some studying of the proper approach in the next few weeks and then start to tackle this towards the end of the month. Taxee (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I also agree with Richard's comments, including a separate section for criticism. The article is meant to be mainly about William Branham, not a vehicle for others to try to refute everything he claimed or believed. I look forward to seeing Taxee's revision. Meanwhile I will make a few edits of my own. Rev107 (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
For further discussion of this subject see William M Branham: Reliable Sources Noticeboard Rev107 (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Above link archived at William M Branham: Reliable Sources Noticeboard Rev107 (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me why this article is not in violation of the NPOV principle? All external links to anti-Branham websites have been removed but there are links to pro-Branham websites and churches throughout the article. This article has become seriously biased as a result of the work of Rev107. Example - the 03:09, November 18, 2012 edit byRev107 completely eliminated external links to websites that are critical of William Branham. He justified this by presenting what I consider to be an biased statement to Wikipedia:Reliable sources and then used that (William M Branham: Reliable Sources Noticeboard) to eliminate all of the external links that questioned the credibility of William Branham. While one is required to assume good faith on the part of editors, this appears to be a clear introduction of bias into this article. Taxee (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Before any self published websites were removed advice & clarification were sought from Reliable Sources Noticeboard here. The response was a definite "no" to the use of self published sources criticizing the subject. Self published sources can only be used for information about the subject. For instance, an Al-qaeda site could be used for information about Al-qaeda but self published sites cannot be used as reliable sources to criticize Al-Qaeda Rev107 (talk)
Rev107 - you stated that you wanted to abide by Wikipediea's NPOV rules. As a result, I assumed you would, however, in the external link section you removed EVERY external link that was critical of William Branham BUT kept every external self-published link that was pro-Branham. That represents proper NPOV???? I think not. As a result, I will be reviewing this page daily and will slowly but surely bring it back into the NPOV realm. BTW, I just ordered 10 books that cover this subject, so within a month or so we should be well on our way to having a much more NPOV article. As your deletions appear to be biased, I expect that your inclusions from sourced material have likely been colored as well. I am looking forward to getting this article much more neutral, once I have the reference material in hand. Taxee (talk) 21:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you would address the points raised in my previous response. This might also be an appropriate time for you to disclose your particular interest in the subject and any connection with anti-Branham sites. Rev107 (talk) 09:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
You stated that the "response was a definite "no" to the use of self published sources criticizing the subject" but one has to assume that a prohibition against using self-published sources should apply equally to pro or con websites. Otherwise, the policy doesn't make a lot of sense. If you had deleted both the positive and negative sites, then my criticism of your bias would be unfair. But the edits you made were clearly one-sided and thus your purpose was clear.
I am not anti-Branham but have seen some of the more negative aspects of Branhamism as a former member of a Branhamite church. It is important that the very clear negatives of Branham's legacy are stated as plainly as the currently over-emphasized positives. A neutral approach is required and that is clearly lacking in the current article, which you seem to have used as an apologetic for Branham in the past. I take exception to that. I do not want the article to be positive or negative but to clearly state both the positives and negatives in equal fashion, something that the current article DOES NOT DO. You fight against saying anything negative which is an improper approach. Balance is required. Taxee (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Please re-read your first sentence, it does not make sense. The fact that self published sites by followers of WB are used as sources of information about his ministry is approved by WP guidelines, as long as appropriate WP voice is used.
Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience, or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves WP:RS
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves WP:V.
I edited my first sentence to make it clearer.
My interpretation of WP:RS is that Branham's sermons would be considered a self-published source in respect of an article about Branham. But how does quoting a pro-Branham website meet the self-published criteria for the article on Branham himself? He didn't publish the information. His supporters did. Such material would certainly be suitable material for an article on Voice of God Recordings, the operator of the website, but it is also clear that they are not William Branham and thus cannot be considered an acceptable self-published source in respect of Branham. Simply being pro-Beranham does not somehow make a self-published source acceptable, does it? Taxee (talk) 22:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Take it to a Noticeboard discussion and post the link here. Rev107 (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I posted the arguments here. Taxee (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Exceptional Claims

An editor (Taxee) removed substantial portions of the article on the basis that they were "exceptional claims". I agree with the editor (StAnslem) that "This is a misuse of WP:EXCEPTIONAL - the fact that Branham "claimed" these things is not exceptional - everything is written in Wikipedia's voice". The supernatural claims made by WB are what attracted world wide attention and are an integral part of his ministry. Clearly supernatural claims cannot be verified - what can be verified is that the person making the claims believed them, and that these claims had a significant impact on the man's followers. Rev107 (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF states that it is acceptable to use self-published source material provide that...the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim...
In this case, followers of the cult of William Branham are trying to avoid the obvious concerns from those outside the cult that the outrageous claims of William Branham are given credibility. The material is definitely self-serving and focused on exceptional claims.
This article needs some serious editing to bring it back within normal NPOV parameters. As Richard Keatinge stated above - This article offers considerable scope for easy improvement, mainly by removing large amounts of inappropriate content. Also, you quote a comment by StAnselm but there is no reference for the quote. Taxee (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
It was my edit summary here. StAnselm (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It is pointless to discuss whether WB's claims were true or not - all that needs to be demonstrated is that he made such claims and that his followers regard these claims as an important & integral part of the Message. StAnselm has noted that correct Wikipedia voice has been used in reporting the claims. Rev107 (talk) 04:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not pointless to discuss whether such claims are true when they are:
1. Exceptional claims;
2. Self-serving claims by WMB himself; and
3. Research has been uncovered recently on a variety of websites that prove that the claims are false. It should be noted that these websites were all previously listed in this article but were deleted.
Because the new research material is self-published, it cannot be used in the article. I appreciate that. But does that mean that wild unverified claims are left to stand on this article without the slightest warning that they are not true and, in fact, research has been uncovered to prove that they are, in fact, false claims? Taxee (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
As has been noted by another editor (Keatinge 5 Sep 2012) on this Talk page, the supernatural (such as visions) cannot be proved true or false. This even applies to the miracles performed by Jesus Christ. It is easily demonstrated that WB made supernatural claims and that his followers regard these claims as of great importance to their faith in him as a prophet and messenger. The correct Wikipedia voice has been used and at no time has a claim been made in absolute terms. We cannot say "An angel appeared to Branham" - we can say "Branham claimed an angel appeared to him."
The introductory paragraph was NOT written by me or any Message follower. The wording was devised by [1] Hyper3 in November 2008and agreed to. The disputed sentence in the introductory paragraph lists the three main responses to WB's ministry among ALL Pentecostals: (1) those who accepted his healing ministry, (2) those who accepted him as one prophet among others, (3) those who accepted his teaching as supernaturally vindicated. Rev107 (talk) 12:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that these are the three main responses. The sentence references the extreme and that extreme is specifically referenced in David Harrell's book, one of the main independent sources on Branham. The reference are a number of church websites and other much less credible sources than Harrell's book. The wording that I added is not my own but, rather, from one of the most credible sources out there. Taxee (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The reference in Harrell's book ("born of a virgin") is specifically referring to a minority among "Branham's followers". The sentence in the introductory paragraph is referring to ALL Pentecostal Christians: While many Pentecostal Christians welcomed his evangelistic and healing ministry, and some [Pentecostal Christians] considered him to be a prophet, a minority [of Pentecostal Christians] have accorded him an even higher status, believing that his ministry and teachings were supernaturally vindicated by God.
For the sake of compromise, I would agree to the following sentence from Harrell being included in the Criticism section: Many of Branham’s followers fervently believed that the revivalist came in the spirit of Elijah; some of his closest friends believed him to be God, born of a virgin. (Harrell, 1978, p164) Rev107 (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not prepared to accept the wording in the introductory paragraph without some specific reference to an independent source. Rev107 references a group of self-published sites, which by his own admission, are inappropriate.Taxee (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
I am prepared to accept your wording of the first paragraph as long as the modifications taken directly from Weaver are included.
Please read the WP guidelines on self published material here. StAnselm has already established that self published materials about the subject can be used as long as claims are expressed in appropriate Wikipedia voice. To say that an angel spoke to WB is an exceptional claim. To say that WB claimed an angel spoke to him is not an exceptional claim.
Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged by reliable sources as fringe, pseudoscience, or extremist may be used as sources of information about themselves WP:RS
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves WP:V.Rev107 (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I take this to mean that you can use William Branham's statements about himself BUT this does not mean that you can use sources other than William Branham to support him. If you exclude negative self-published materials you must also exclude positive non-Branham self-published materials. My concern is that your edits are clearly colored by your pro-Branham bias. Taxee (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with your premise and think this should be raised again on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Because you objected to the way I did it last time, please ask the question on RSN and place the link on this page.
I assume you also accept the use of self published sources that criticize other religious groups, such as the Mennonites.
My concern is that your edits are clearly coloured by your anti-Branham bias. Furthermore, I am concerned that you could be seeking to promote a self published site you are actively involved with. I would like to know of any connection you have with any sites you listed in External Links under those critical of WB. Rev107 (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Your comment above seems to indicate a confusion between Menno Simons, a much more historically important figure than William Branham, and the religious movement itself, the Mennonites. You appear to be similarly confusing William Branham with the Branhamite movement. A self-published source of the Branhamite movement is perhaps valid as a self-published source for the article on Branhamism but not for the article in question on Branham himself.
My concern is that followers of William Branham, such as yourself, seem to think that he is the best thing since Jesus Christ, while the average Christian in North America has no knowledge of him. In fact, if the article on Branham was as concise as the article on Menno Simons, it would be much better.
That you are biased in respect of this article is perfectly clear, given your online comments outside of Wikipedia. You apparently consider anything critical of William Branham to be "poisonous rubbsh" (sic).
I greatly appreciate the research provided by websites that take a more balanced view of William Branham (although some of them are clearly more balanced than others). For example, a website such as Searching For Vindication, my personal favorite thus far, provides historical research with respect to Branham's claims. i would have thought such a website would be be welcomed by everyone. To repeat, I am not anti-Branham, although I also do not believe him to be a prophet, and certainly not the greatest man that ever walked the face of the earth next to Jesus Christ. Not surprisingly, the independent reference sources that I have read to date don't seem to hold that view either. I will admit to my bias as being firmly entrenched in Christian orthodoxy. Given that William Branham was decidedly unorthodox in many of his doctrinal positions, I want this article to be balanced and neither pro-Branham or anti-Branham. It should be neutral.
I am doing a lot more reading on William Branham and will be editing the article based on credible non-self-published references sources in the very near future (which is why I have paused my editing for the time being). I look forward to future discussions on the subject with Rev107 so that we can get this article firmly into NPOV territory. Taxee (talk) 22:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated elsewhere, before you begin editing I suggest you clarify some of the points regarding sources by initiating discussions with other editors on the appropriate Noticeboards, as I have done. The contributions of SFV to the anti-Branham Delphi forum run by John Kennah puts the neutrality of this site in serious doubt. Your link to my comments outside WP is by virtue of my not concealing my name. Since you have made this a part of your argument, it seems fitting that you return the favour. Rev107 (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I never stated that SFV was neutral but the tone of the site and the presentation of data is decidedly neutral. They appear to have been honestly looking for answers and simply presented their research. Their search for truth may have led them out of Branhamism but that does not mean the research is invalid.
On the identity issue, you decided to reveal your name. I choose not to. PERIOD. THE END. That is my prerogative and in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Taxee (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes it is WP policy but it raises serious doubts about your sincerity in seeking a NPOV, especially as you have used comments you have traced to my name to support your argument.
SFV is not NPOV - look closer Rev107 (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Church websites

This page should not contain links to churches that revere William Branham. Such links properly belong on the Branhamism page as they do not add to Branham's biography or a further understanding of his life.

I intend to delete all of the church links unless someone can provide a valid reason for keeping them here. Taxee (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I will closely scrutinize each deletion and decide on an individual basis whether I agree to its removal. The claim that there are churches around the world that follow WB should be validated by giving evidence that such churches exist.
I have never objected to sites that are critical of WB - as long as NPOV wording is used. Rev107 (talk) 07:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Rev107, in your 03:09, November 18, 2012 edit, you completely eliminated all of the external links to websites that were critical of William Branham. As such your above statement that you never objected is incorrect. I supposed one could argue that you never objected to them, you just deleted them. This article is seriously biased. Al references to individual churches should be moved to the Branhamism article. As Richard Keatinge stated "This article offers considerable scope for easy improvement, mainly by removing large amounts of inappropriate content."
I am certainly prepared to submit to the powers that be at Wikipedia to ensure that this article assumes a proper NPOV stance. This may require dispute resolution on a line by line basis unless Rev107 is prepared to compromise his penchant to eliminate all things critical of William Branham. Taxee (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
As noted previously, the websites were only removed after advice from the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here. I have not attempted to "eliminate all things critical of William Branham" at all. In fact I created the Criticism section (12:45 2 Dec 2012) and the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs of the Criticism section were mostly written by me. Contrary to what you might think I do not believe WB was infallible as a man, nor do I believe that every word he spoke was The Message.
I have restored the links to Cloverdale Bibleway and Lee Vayle because they are mentioned in the main article. I do not object to the lesser known churches you have deleted.
Your reference to Richard Keatinge's comment is concerning: RK said: This article offers considerable scope for easy improvement, mainly by removing large amounts of inappropriate content. The "inappropriate content" to which he was referring is mainly the refuting of minor points by self published websites. You need to carefully read RK's comments in context Rev107 (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
See my comments in the immediately preceding section relating to your confusing Branham with Branhamism. The church sites could be relevant to the Branhamism article but I cannot see how individual churches are relevant to the article on Branham. I will be editing them out once my research is complete and I start a serious rewrite of the article. Taxee (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Any changes to the article will be assessed on an individual basis and I reserve the right to edit the article according to my understanding of reliable sources which includes links to WBs statements and VGR statements. Before you begin to edit I suggest you clarify some of these points through discussions with other editors on the appropriate Noticeboard pages Rev107 (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
VGR statements are not appropriate in an article on Branham. As I said, they may be appropriate in the Branhamism article but on on the article on Branham. Taxee (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
This will have to be resolved as I am not prepared to accept your interpretation of appropriate sources. VGR is a branch of the William Branham Evangelistic Association that WB established himself.Rev107 (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
William Branham is dead. His only self-published information are his sermons. Neither VGR nor WBEA are acceptable self-published sources in my opinion. They may be acceptable in the article on Branhamism but not in an article on Branham himself. I agree that this should be resolved as you want an article that is an apologetic for Branhamism. I want a clearly NPOV article. Taxee (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You have now claimed how neutral you are and how biased I am so many times I really do know what you think. Let's focus on the article and WP policy, not each other. As for WBEA & VGR it is necessary to look at the context. The reference links to VGR in para 2 pertain to comments about WB's followers. The only other links to VGR (apart from WB's online sermons) I can see are in the section about themselves under "Legacy". Rev107 (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The self published sites you deleted on 7 Aug pertain to what WB's followers believe. VGR (Billy-Paul & Joseph Branham) and Tucson Tabernacle (Peary Green) are accepted by Weaver as reliable sources for the purpose of what WB's followers believe. Rev107 (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Summary section

This section is for debate surrounding the inclusion or exclusion of items in the summary section.

1. Question: is there any reference for the statement - adherents prefer the name "Message Believers."? This statement is also included in the Branhamism article but again without reference. Taxee (talk 01:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The term Message Believers is used frequently by C D Weaver to refer to WB's followers Rev107 (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

2. Where is the support for this comment?

He believed Christians needed to return to the original apostolic faith of the Bible, often referring to Malachi 4:5–6 and Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.'

While I am aware that Branham was fixated on Mal 4:5-6 as pointing to himself, where does the reference to Heb 13:8 come from as being relevant in the summary? Taxee (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

WB used Heb 13:8 over 3,000 times in his online sermons. Rev107 (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
But isn't putting that statement into the article, and in particular into the summary section, contrary to WP:NOR? I thought that all material must be attributable to a reliable, published source. It was my understanding that articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources themselves. Can you tell me why this statement is not a fact for which no reliable, published sources exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.184.65 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously arguing that a link to WB's verbatim comments (both in print & audio) are not a reliable source for what WB said? Rev107 (talk) 05:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
A discussion of self published sources has been started here.
I am saying that synthesizing or analyzing his comments over his lifetime constitutes original research. Your statement that Branham used a specific phrase "over 3,000 times in his online sermons" constitutes a synthesis of his sermons and so is not acceptable under the NOR policy. In my view, this article is not truly written from a NPOV standpoint. I am prepared to spend some serious time to get it properly into a neutral position, which will mean proper reliance on appropriate reference sources and not on self-published materials. Taxee (talk) 00:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
There is another WP discussion of self published sources in External Links here. Your strong support of such sites indicates your interest in a NPOV is very suspect. Rev107 (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Wanting an article to adhere to NPOV guidelines is suspect? Suspect of what? Taxee (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The self published sites that you support are not NPOV. They are published by disaffected members of Message churches. Rev107 (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't support the sites. I support a neutral position. What about the self-published sites that you have referenced throughout which pull the article decidedly away from NPOV? Is it because they are from supporters of Branhamism that they are OK? Can you please explain to me how that is NPOV? Taxee (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Information from sites that support WB should be qualified with a neutral expression such as "He claimed ..." or "They believe ..." Rev107 (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
I think terms like "they BELIEVED" should also be avoided in a lot of cases because it calls for knowledge of the operation of the person's mind. One cannot actually know what another believes. A phrase such as "they claimed to believe" is more reliable and accurate. Matt7:15 (talk) 04:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Matt5:17
That sounds rather verbose and clumsy to me, especially when the published biographers being quoted in this article do not use such expressions, nor do other Wikipedia articles I have looked at. Rev107 (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Issues with Date of Birth

I just edited William Branham's date of birth to show he was born on April 8, 1908. That edit was undone. It is hard to determine the actual date of birth for William Marrion Branham because he gave three different statements regarding his date of birth. On his marriage license he states he was born on April 8, 1908, which is referenced in footnote #1 in the article.

In the sermon entitled, "The Manifestation of the Spirit" (51-0717), he says this: "I was borned in the state of Kentucky, up in the mountain section in a little old log cabin. My book's back there, if you care to pick it up, why, it's all right. See? Gives the story of it. And as I was saying, my--my people, very poor, formerly, Catholic. I'm Irish on both sides. My mother's Harvey, and my father's Branham. The only change of blood was in there at all when my grandfather married a Oklahoma Indian, broke the blood a little, and have just a little colored blood by the Indian. Now, and in being... When I was born on April the sixth, 1909, about five o'clock in the morning..."

But he also claimed to have been born the day after Dowie's death in 1907. John Alexander Dowie died March 9, 1907, so Branham claimed to have been born March 10, 1907.

"Oh, if I... If Jesus tarries, and I can stay that long, let me be like that. That's right. Brother Richey here, how I could speak of him, of how down through the age when I was a little boy in school, he was out there preaching the Gospel and praying for the sick, when I was just a boy. Your mothers and dads listened to him preach the Gospel on Divine healing, both of them out of Zion, Illinois. Candidates are out from under the--the great teacher late Doctor Dowie. How Doctor Dowie in his death prophesied that I would come to that city forty years from the time that he died. Not knowing nothing about it, he died on one day, and I was borned on the next. And forty years to the day I entered the city, not knowing nothing about it. Oh, how God's great move is coming together; I hear the sound of abundance of rain. --51-0929 OUR.HOPE.IS.IN.GOD

Since gives three differing birth dates, it's hard to determine the truth of the matter. Since only one of these dates is supported by an official document, a marriage license issued by the government, the date appearing on that document as his date of birth, April 8, 1908 is the date that should be used in the article. Please undo your undo of my edit. Thanks.Matt7:15 (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Matt5:17

I am new here so I would sincerely appreciate some help. I edited the birthdate again to reflect the only official date of birth on record, which is on his marriage license issued in Indiana. But I can't seem to figure out how to cite that source. Matt7:15 (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Matt5:17

Firstly, a marriage certificate is not a birth certificate. Secondly, the marriage certificate appears on John Collins website which is not an acceptable source according to Wikipedia policy. Thirdly, both Weaver & Harrell, who are published authors, have confirmed the dob as 1909 and are reliable sources according to Wikipedia policy. Rev107 (talk) 03:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a marriage license is not a birth certificate. However, it is a court document which is available for public perusal. Can you show me where wikipedia does not accept court records or government records as reliable sources? You stated that it is not an acceptable source because it appears on a website, but that is not the source. The source of the marriage license is found in Indiana government records, which are quite verifiable. Weaver and Harrell may be published authors, but this is an actual government document. Matt7:15 (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Matt5:17

The reason published sources are used is because self published websites have been known to alter documents. I am not saying it is so in this case, but nevertheless, it means that published authors will always be preferred sources before anything appearing on a personal website, especially when that person has a well-known anti-Branham stance. Rev107 (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, although a document may appear on a website, that is not the ultimate source. The ultimate source is the courthouse where the document is available for public view. Information given on such documents is given under penalties for perjury. Therefore, a document signed by the man himself with information given by the man himself under penalty of perjury would purport to be a highly reliable source. Matt7:15 (talk) 04:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Matt5:17

There is always the question of whether the copy (repeat "copy") of the document on Collin's website is authentic. Even if the document is genuine and has not been altered, it is still not the ultimate source. The perjury thing is not true. All that is required is that a person give the dob they think is most accurate at the time of completing an official document ("to the best of your knowledge") especially when there is no birth certificate. Published biographies by neutral authors are always the best source of information. Rev107 (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
What source did those published authors use for citing his date of birth? If they used the sermons of WMB for their source, they clearly overlooked those sermons where he gives a different date of birth. At this point, I think the only solution at this point is to state in the article either that his date of birth is in dispute or that it is undetermined. Matt7:15 (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Matt7:15
There are no sermons where WB gives a different dob (see here). There is no dispute among published authors, including Weaver, Harrell, & Lindsay, . The reference to Dowie's death only shows he was mistaken about when Dowie died. It is always better to consider simple explanations before looking for more sinister alternatives. Rev107 (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Conforming to the NRM Manual of Style

This article needs to be brought into line with the the NRM Workgroup’s Manual of Style

The problem with the current William M. Branham article is that it is based to a large extent on primary sources. As such, the article in its present stated does not conform to the NRM Manual of Style. It is not appropriate to use primary sources for explicit or implicit advocacy for or against Branhamism or Branham himself, unless a reliably published secondary source is cited using the same primary source in the same manner.

The workgroup specifically states that in the NRM field, primary sources include:

  • Writings or other media published by an NRM;
  • Writings or media recordings of a movement's founder;
  • Self-published writings of members and ex-members;
  • Websites of members, ex-members and critics.

This would mean that the article should be substantially rewritten to comply with the workgroup’s manual of style. Is anyone prepared to help me? Matt7:15 (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Matt7:15

It definitely makes sense that this issue has been dealt with previously on Wikipedia. Thank you for posting this. I have skimmed the manual of style but need to go over it in more detail. Working to a set of rules will make it easier to decide what to keep and what to delete. But pulling all of the primary source materials out is a big job. And I am thinking that if we run into disputes (which is likely given my experience to date) we could probably ask for the help of some of the experienced editors in the workgroup. Taxee (talk) 00:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
This is not an article about a NRM - it is an article about an individual person. The appropriate guidelines are found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies. The article called "Branhamism" is where the NRM guidelines can be applied. Rev107 (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually I believe that it does apply. I suggest that you read the manual of style as it specifically includes "Articles on movement founders". Taxee (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The biographical aspects of the article are subject to the biographical guidelines. The NRM guidelines do not exclude primary sources, and link directly to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources which provide more guidance on the use of self published material. Editors should note that "pulling all of the primary source materials out" is not supported by any of the guidelines. Rev107 (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
The NRM guidelines most certainly apply in this case, because WMB is the founder of a NRM, and that is the ONLY reason WMB merits a wikipedia article at all. Matt7:15 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Matt7:15
The NRM Manual of Style regarding reliable sources cannot and does not differ from WP:V which is one of the three core Wikipedia policies - in particular the section Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves.
The NRM MOS states: Primary sources can be cited to support specific statements, but the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. All of the primary sources cited in the article support specific statements. More secondary sources can be included to satisfy the WP:V and MOS:NRM requirement regarding the bulk of the article, but neither of these WP guidelines support the removal of primary sources. Rev107 (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_M._Branham/Archive_3&oldid=983655313"