Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Some proposed changes

Reiterman does not say that Cadle Tabernacle was Jim Jones' church ("End Of Revival" section). Researching the history on Cadle Tabernacle, it is apparent that the building was rented out for civic events after the death of Ola Cadle (Howard Cadle's wife) in 1955 http://www.brookspublications.com/files/CADLE_TABERNACLE_mar08.pdf. Jones' church was "People's Temple." Suggest removing "Jones' church". DEvans (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Reply 27-FEB-2018

Irregardless of who owned the building or who was renting it, when Jones invited the subject to visit, it would ostensibly have been at a time when Jones was present, perhaps at the pulpit, conducting a service. For simple reasons of nomenclatural convenience, a location where an event such as this took place may be referred to conversationally as "so-and-so's church", despite the fact that "so-and-so's" link to the location may indeed have been only transitory in nature. In any event, I believe what was being referred to here by "church" was Jones' congregation, and not the physical building itself. Regards, Spintendo      23:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

You obviously did not read the source. You are using semantics in an attempt to resolve the request edit, and by doing so, you are supporting an unsourced and inaccurate statement in the text. The fact is that Branham spoke at a rented venue during a large convention. He did not speak a People's Temple (Jones' church). Neither Reiterman, nor any other source, says that Cadle Tabernacle was Jones' church. It's a simple mistake that needs to be corrected, or, please find a source that says Cadle Tabernacle was Jones' church. *I work for William Branham Ministries DEvans (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I went back and read the source. I think this is an easy fix so there is no ambiguity. You are right, the book does not say Cadle Tabernacle was Jones own building, it was a rented auditorium. There is not harm in making that clearer in our article. How about the following (I have already updated the article)

Before: Seeking a means to catapult his fame and earn followers, he invited Branham to a religious convention organized at Jones' church, Cadle Tabernacle in Indianapolis from June 11 through June 15, 1956.

After: Seeking a means to catapult his fame and earn followers, he invited Branham to a religious convention organized by Jones' church and held at the Cadle Tabernacle auditorium in Indianapolis from June 11 through June 15, 1956.

I also personally think this paragraph might be a little bit on the side of undue weight. Branham spawned dozens of emulators according to Weaver, Harrell, and Kydd. None of them make any reference to Branham's connection to Jones in their books. Jones is just one of many people who tried to copy Branham. Jones just happened to be a suicidal murder, whereas Oral Roberts and the rest were not. None of Branham's biographies mention Jones at all, this is sourced purely from a book on Jim Jones. Althought I didn't change it... the phrase "lured Branham to a religious convention..." might actually better fit the context. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

 Declined You're correct. The issue is complex and deserves more discussion on the topic. When this is completed and there is consensus, you may re-open the edit request. Regards Spintendo      16:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

This does not make sense. This is purely a matter of reading the source and writing the sentence to properly reflect it. I propose you actually participate rather than shut down the conversation. At any rate, I have already made the requested edit. It is a valid request. I would like to move forward with a featured article review of this article, and not having any significant disputes is a requirement for that. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:43, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

This whole matter of Jim Jones holding a meeting in the same building that Branham held a meeting has no significance at all as far as the Branham article goes. It was simply added by Collins in his attempt to make Branham look bad and shouldn't even be mentioned. Danpeanuts (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2018Danpeanuts (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of the first part of the paragraph to more accurately reflect the several pages in the Reiterman book on Jones. The issue is an important section in one of the seminal books on Jones. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 01:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Largest meetings ever held?

There is a statement in the lead section - "At the time, his meetings in the United States were the largest religious meetings ever held" - which I am not sure is supported in the article. Could you please provide support for this claim, @Charles Edward:? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 01:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That information can be found in Weaver, pages 46-47. *I work for WB Ministries DEvans (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because there is a source for something it does not mean it has to be in the article, particularly if it can be proven to be false. Check out the size of the crowds at Hajj, for example. Branham's largest crowd, according to the article was 30,000, I think the Hajj regularly tops that. Look at Mahamaham, where 20 years ago there were a million folks. There is a photo there from ca 1900 that shows a vast crowd. Also on wikipedia editors are advised to avoid working in articles that they have a personal connection to or a vested interest in, which seems, @DEvans: to include you. Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Carptrash: I gave no opinion on the subject; I was just answering the request for a citation. Here is my opinion: I agree with your information about the Hajj, but the author is referring to religious meetings in the United States at that time. And I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that just because it is mentioned in a publication, does not mean it has to be included, especially if that publication is self-published activism or an obscure one-off newspaper article. There are a few of these in the page as it stands now. As far as me contributing to the WB page, I am doing my best to follow Wiki guidelines in staying on the talk page and divulging my conflict of interest.

FYI: The WB page has been tragically vandalized over the years by certain individuals who have a definite interest in assassinating his character. It eventually turned into a rant against WB, which is where it will go if not in check. There are two people with a COI on this page. I am the honest one. *I work for WB Ministries DEvans (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I will try to get you a direct quote from the sources this evening, I don't have them in front of me right now. We can adjust if needed. I believe the point is they were the largest events, up to that time (1940s-1950s). I believe the source is indicating American cities, not Indian or Saudi Arabian cities, to respond to Carptrash. There have been larger since in the Unites States. Per the sources, his largest event had 500,000 attendees and resulted in 30,000 converts. But that was a major outlier, I think. Seems most of the meetings were in the 10,000-75,000 range in attendees. (Based on my own personal knowledge and not a source, Billy Graham and Popes have subsequently drawn larger crowds. Note: the Pope first came the US in the 1965) At any rate, I will get direct quotes and post here and we can craft something more precise. I see your point. :) The sentance in the lead is a paraphrase of these two sentences in the body, in the healing campaign section:

At the time they were held, Branham's revivals were largest religious meetings most of the cities he visited had ever seen. Reports of 1,000 to 1,500 converts per meeting were common.  :—Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

"At the time, his meetings in the United States were the largest religious meetings ever held" - This statement does not agree with Weaver's statement that "Branham's revivals were largest religious meetings most of the cities he visited had ever seen." Which cities are included in "most cities"? Smaller cities? If it were NYC, Chicago, etc. then maybe you could make the statement. But Weaver's statement is too vague to make the claim that Branham's meetings were the largest ever held in the US. There is no reference to the historical basis for the claim. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 22:33, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

At the time they were held, Branham's revivals were largest religious meetings most of the cities he visited had ever seen. Reports of 1,000 to 1,500 converts per meeting were common.

—Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is the quote from Weaver. Please note in this section he looking specifically at the meetings held in 1947 and 1948, which at this point were only held in the United States and Canada. The largest number of attendees reported by Weaver during this period was 70,000. (I do not personally know where that ranks overall, and the author does not state. I feel like that is probably pretty large though in historical terms.) Also keep in mind, Branham was not visiting many major cities, he was instead holding meetings in places like Kansas City, Shreveport, Vancouver, and similar small to medium sized cities during this period and drawing in large crowds. So that makes the statement more understandable.

"Cities were made "God-conscious" as they witnessed their largest religious meetings ever. According to reports, 1,000, to 1,500 were often converted in a single revival service."

Here is one of Weaver's specific examples given in this same section:

According to a UPI press release, the town of 5,800 [of Vandalia, Illinois] swelled by an additional 4,000 sick persons. Most were blind, deaf, or lame. The city's three hotels were overflowing. Benches were converted to makeshift beds and many visitors slept on the ground. Branham was definitely making a sensation.

Similar comments are also in Harrell, p. 35. Harrell also indicates that in 1951, A. A. Allen had the largest audiences overall. Both Harrell and Weaver are overall deeply critical of Branham. I see no reason dispute their statements, and I am not aware of a source which dispute the actual attendance at his meetings. There are a couple pictures in this article. On picture seems to show a crowd of 20,000+

So, taking this into consideration, I have adjusted the sentances as follows. In the body:

At the time they were held, Branham's revival meetings were largest religious meetings some American cities he visited had ever seen.

And in the lead to this:

At the time, some his meetings were the largest religious meetings ever held in some cities in the United States.

What do you think? After looking over the source, I understand your point. I agree we need to be clear. :) Perhaps we could just use this quote from Harrell instead? We need a line to summarize the nature of his campaign meetings in the lead to have it flow nicely.

Branham held massive inter-denominational meetings from which came reports of hundreds of miracles.

—Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed featured article review

I am proposing to take this article through a featured article review. There is some additional copy editing and research I intend to finish first. Doing so will bring this article before some of the top editors on Wikipedia, including a high degree of scrutiny of the sources used in this article. I have previously mentioned my own concerns about Duyzer and Collins and tried to limit the impact of those sources on the article, and I suspect the reviewers may have similar concerns. This process will likely lead to another significant copy editing of the article and a another detailed review of the sources. I am placing this message here as a courtesy to anyone who would like to contribute to that process or to anyone who objects to me taking that course of action. If anyone has a specific issue they would like to have addressed before I undertake this review, please let me know. Thanks! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Charles Edward, I do believe you have good intentions with this article, but I would ask that you delay featuring or promoting it as it will cause real-world harm by deceiving potential victims.

I was raised inside the Branham headquarters (The Voice Of God Recordings - VGR), which is run by the current "Prophet," Joseph Branham. I am aware that their head of PR has been quite vocal on this talk page under at least 2 different handles. When I was there, I myself participated in Wikipedia war/strategy meetings for this page. This group is high demand, high control, deceptively dangerous, and extremely well funded. They sell the recorded sermons of William Branham and have extensive youth recruitment activities. I worked there for over five years in a position that provided insight into many aspects of operations (which led to my exit). Prior to that, I helped build their internet and youth indoctrination operation. They claim to have millions of followers.

They have a sharply-bounded group that considers William Branham to be the only source of "Absolute Truth". Those who do not accept William Branham to be their "Absolute" are eventually shunned or punished. Children and families are often isolated based on their contact with the outside world (like public education). Furthermore, they openly deceive newcomers and outsiders about the nature of the group, claiming it is purely "Bible-based". http://themessage.com/en/faqs To quote Joseph Branham, "If William Branham is not your absolute, then we have nothing, NOTHING to discuss".

Yesterday I completed a survey of 46 former followers of William Branham in the form of the Group Psychological Abuse Scale (GPA-S) and the Personal Abuse Experienced in Groups Scale (PAEGS). I also asked former followers to also specify the number of hours spent weekly listening to WMB's sermons. There is a correlation (with 99% certainty) that increased exposure to William Branham's sermons is associated with much higher scores on the GPA-S and PAEGS.

There is also a 95% or higher certainty that this group can be categorized as an abusive cult on at least two methods of measurement.

GPA-S: N=46, Mean=99, STDDEV=16, abusive group cutoff=74

PAEGS: N=31, Mean=46.9, STDDEV=10.91, victim cutoff=13

Of those who identified their subgroup, nearly half identified Joseph Branham is their local leader, but the respondents were otherwise spread out across the globe. All identified as former followers of William Branham from groups considering him the Voice Of God.

I am not sure when or if I will have a peer-reviewed study for you; critical studies of powerful religious groups are rarely accepted for publication. It is likely that I, too, will end up self-publishing my research. Publishers must face guaranteed legal challenges and harassment through defamation lawsuits. Ethics rules prevent experiments. Scientology shut down the Cult Awareness Network and now uses the name to recruit others.

It's not just academic and legal hurdles that must be faced, but also financial and relational hurdles. For example, my own father stated that he would support a lawsuit against me for defaming Joseph Branham. "Polarizing" is an understatement. Many escapees leave in poverty, without an education, and in need of medical care.

Although you would consider it a "primary source", I would strongly urge you to spend time reviewing William Branham's recorded sermons, as they record what he actually said. See http://table.branham.org to search. Try "satan designer woman".

Groups like these have survived by being very, very good at PR, leveraging legal threat and harassment, and being very good at thought reform. My studies at CU Boulder are focused on the innovative methods of thought reform (mind control) popularized by William Branham and his contemporaries.

To me, it is very valuable to document the relationships between various cult leaders, as it offers insight into potential lineage of group control and abuse methods. Jim Jones did not acquire his control techniques in isolation, nor did Branham. But it would be amiss to attribute great influence to Branham without also revealing the extremism he popularized even more heavily during his later years, and how greatly his subtle approach to brainwashing overlaps with related and splinter groups. This is an audio-based cult; William Branham's brainwashing has been immortalized and translated for the most vulnerable populations. Today, his faith healing and abstinence doctrine is being taught across Africa, and targeted to HIV+ populations. The human toll is incalculable.

Had Jim Jones died a couple years earlier, history could have made him a saint. Much of the extreme doctrine behind the tragic outcome was shared with William Branham (speak worlds into existence when we leave this plane, etc).

Again, I would ask that you refrain from promoting this article until more accurate sources are available, and to consider judging secondary sources by how well they correlate with primary sources rather than more superficial appearance of biases or their venue of publication.

Sometimes groups are called cults - because they're really cults. "Cult" is the best term I know of to warn potential victims to be vigilant. It appears that many citations from various authors labeling Branhamism a cult have been removed. This is very concerning, and dangerous. By every measurement or instrument so far applied, this group is harmful - particularly to women and children. I would be happy to share my research with you.

More research has been done on Branham in the last five years than in the previous fifty years combined (in part due to record digitization), and while we're currently stuck with loads of primary sources (records, death certificates, etc), that will change. Hard records reflect poorly on Branham, but secondary sources are still catching up.

I would also suggest that you reference BelieveTheSign.com (once a pro-Branham site that was eventually overwhelmed with contradictory evidence). It is more accurate and up-to-date that most other sources, and makes it easy to locate and verify claims against primary sources.

If you reject self-published sources, you will likely vindicate a wide range of dangerous cults as "harmless". Unlike the $130MM group defending Branham on this page under a variety of handles, those working to expose the reality behind his charismatic legacy do not have the funding, or organization, or the resources to effectively combat such a powerful operation. Self-publication is often the only option.

Again, please consider giving more weight to newspaper and government records and realize that in the context of such powerful groups, the false middle ground fallacy is extremely relevant.

Your actions here have serious real-word consequences. This page is the first stop for many potential victims.

--Less wrong daily (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your feedback. I will definitely take this into consideration. I think the article conveys to the reader that some his followers are deemed a cult by multiple sources (Larson and Weaver both use the term cult). It in fact quotes himself lamenting that his followers were turning into a cult. It also records the key disagreements with many key elements - the claim that the baptisimal story was embellished, Upshaw died a year after being healed, the few follow ups of reported healings showed that not everyone was really healed, the claim that the entire healing revival was a hoax, and pointedly explaining that his teachings feel outside of orthodox Christianity and that he died rejected by his contemporaries, etc. I think a reader should be able to read this article and draw fair conclusions. A truthful article would ultimately, I think, be best for such a situation. But I am certainly not an expert in things like that. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this group targets the less educated segments of any population. If it's not in the first paragraph, it's unlikely to be noticed. William Branham's relevance today is almost exclusively in terms of his legacy of sermons and the cult he formed.

Having listened to all of William Branham's sermons many times, I would estimate a 100:1 ratio of WMB promoting himself as the Voice Of God/Final Church Age Messenger/Angel/Prophet compared his protests about it going to far. In the case of the "Arizona Trailer Park", his final word was that "it would turn out all right". It ended in sexual and physical abuse, which came to light in the trial of a serial killer raised there. I found Weaver's book to be extremely apologetic for William Branham.

For example, go to table.branham.org and do a phrase search for "God's prophet".

Less wrong (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

CharlesEdward and others: I lament public back-and-forth bantering, and I don't think WP is the proper place for it. “Less wrong daily” is a fine young man with a lot to offer society. He worked with us for a few years as a teenager and left about 8 years ago. I have nothing but good things to say about him from my experiences. I hope he finds closure in his research.

Wikipedia is the most widely used source of knowledge in the world. I don’t think this is the place to slap a “cult” label on an enormous group of people, who operate completely independently with absolutely no governing body. That is an important fact to include in the article because it is exactly what William Branham’s ministry was about. As with all faiths there are some extremists, but that does not speak for the majority.

Here is what WB said in his book, An Exposition Of The Seven Church Ages: Denominations are not of God. They never have been and never will be. It's a wrong spirit that separates the people of God into hierarchy and laity; and it's, therefore, a wrong spirit that separates the people from the people. That's what organization and denominations do.

Further, the article once again seems to have tipped the scales of being a rehash of Weaver’s book, which was written in a very negative light. We want the same thing you do, which is a neutral and accurate William Branham page. As you’ve found out, it ain’t easy :) *I work at WB Ministries. DEvans (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@DEvans, I assume you are acting in good faith and thus I will assume that you are unaware that you appear to be in violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest (COI) behavioral guideline. Please see WP:CONFLICT for details but as an employee of an organization (by your admission above) that exists solely to promote William Branham and believes him to be infallible, it appears that you are in a COI with respect to influencing the direction of this article. Editors with a COI are expected to disclose it whenever they seek to influence an affected article's content. I suggest that you read WP:DISCLOSE and ensure you are in compliance going forward. Additionally, as an employee of an NRM that is seeking to influence Wikipedia, you need to be aware of WP:PUPPET as those in NRM's often seek to use sockpuppets in their editing. Your views on the subject are welcome but you must disclose the COI going forward. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 19:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@DarligGitarist, it was clear in the discussion that I work at WB Ministries, but I added it to prevent any type of oversight. DEvans (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@DEvans, thanks for your transparency. I have also added a note at the top of this talk page as recommended by WP:COIEDIT Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 20:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@CharlesEdward, thank you for all of the good work that you are doing on this article. I do think it would be great if the quality of the article was sufficient to make it a featured article. I will review the article again at some point in time, but am just too busy at present to spend the time necessary. But However, I really do appreciate the effort involved on your part. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 20:31, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, I am not permitted "out" anyone as having COI. I'm confident there are undeclared COIs remaining. Is it OK to suggest caution with these accounts, and to consider reviewing what they have deleted? Less wrong (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JamesRJones
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/74.129.221.155
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/170.248.145.105
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/105.112.32.134

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Brother_in_Christ
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elijahue
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Megabgar - appears to make deletion sprees of unflattering info
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chris701
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Malachi456
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Electseed
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rev107
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/danpeanuts

These people may not have a COI but rather they may simply be members of the Branham NRM. They are single issue editors, i.e. their only interest in editing on Wikipedia is this or related articles. See the essay on editing NRM articles at WP:NRMMOS. While both critics and adherents of a movement may be drawn to an article on that movement, both should realise that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy in favour of or in opposition to a movement. Editors should not attempt to turn the Wikipedia article on a new religious movement into a glowing tribute, or a cutting-edge critique, but attempt to create a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature on the movement. The same applies to articles on groups and individuals opposing new religious movements. Editors working in this field who have strong religious allegiances, or firmly-held views on the value of new and established religious movements, are encouraged to disclose their allegiances or views on their user page. This prevents speculation and enables an open and collegial working relationship even between editors with diametrically opposite views. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 01:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Some are employed by Voice Of God Recordings; others are volunteers or related to employees. Less wrong (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I think I may have a little different takes on this. This article is a a biography about William Branham. It would be COI for Branham (were he living) to edit his own biography. It would be a COI for voice of God employees or volunteers to edit the (non-existant) Voice of God Recordings page. Branham's average follower would not be anymore guilty of COI than Catholics editing the Pope's article, or Mormons editing on Joseph Smith's article. (Side note: I used Joseph Smith's article as model for how to treat this subject fairly the revision I have recently done) It is possible for Branham's followers (and detractors) to contribute in a constructive manner, so long as they are willing to abide by NPOV policies. WP:COI does not establish a strict prohibition on editing if you merely have a conflict o of interest. The policy states the requirement for you to declare your COI and recommends that you don't edit. I live in Indiana, and write lots about Indiana related articles (like this one), that is not a COI, that is just my area of interest. I similarly think that members of a religious group can contribute to religious articles that interest and it not being COI anymore than me editing on Indiana. That said, it would be COI for a state goverment employee to edit Indiana government articles. And it is COI for WBEA or VGR employees to edit here. But the average Branham follower (or detractor), I do not view that as a COI. It could present NPOV issues, but not COI. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we are in disagreement, @CharlesEdward, although I may not have made that sufficiently clear above. The problem is that the NRM topic area is among a very small number of topic areas consistently generating several intractable disputes per year that require the intervention of Wikipedia's arbitration committee. As a result of these arbitration cases, over the years dozens of editors – both committed members and committed opponents of new religious movements – have received topic bans, even site bans. There can be a great deal more controversy in establishing NPOV in NRM articles than in other types because of the extremely polarized viewpoints of both former and current followers. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 22:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

A further note to anyone watching this article. I have requested assistance from the copy editing guild to help do a final copy edit before FA submission. I have also asked Wehwalt, one of the FAC administrators to offer pre-review guidance. With a little luck, I will submit for review sometime in April. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I made a few spelling corrections for you but will take a second look too. Good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that is kindly appreciated. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot support featured article status based on the article as currently written. Where Weaver couches his language, the current article states things as factual. For example, the article currently reads - "One altar call at his Durban meeting received 30,000 converts." Yet Weavers actual wording is "Lindsay suggested that...". In a footnote in Weaver's book (p.21), Weaver also cautions that Lindsay's and others biographical material on Branham were "apologetic and hagiographic in nature". So how does a suggestion by Lindsay from a hagiographic source become fact? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 01:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The solution is to fix the statements that are problematic. :) I appreciate your fact checking, that tends to be one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. The Featured Article reviewers will be just as thorough as you are. If there are any issues like this, I definitely want to fix them. Please let me know if you find any other issues, I certainly want the article to be as true to the sources as possible. I have adjusted the statement in the article to be clear that Weaver is citing Lindsay. (Whether or not Lindsay's statement is a fact is not pertinent really. A reliable secondary source has repeated his claim. Even if a source says it is wrong, it still worthy of inclusion because his team claimed it to be his largest meeting. The fact they made the claim of such a large event is noteworthy. If a disagreeing source exists that there was not really that many people, then we will add the disagreement to the article to, just like various disagreements are already noted in the article.) You are correct though, where the sources used "couched language", I have been less ambiguous to try and get the the fact of what they are saying. Per WP:Weasel, we need to avoid the use of some of their couched terminology. We are likewise cautioned to avoid using WP:SCAREQUOTES. So wherever possible I have tried to be as direct as possible. I understand though if you think I have carried that too far and I am open to adjusting, I just wanted to explain my rationale. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

principle architect

The lead of the article states that he “is recognized as the "principle architect" of modern restorationist thought” The Wikipedia article on Restorationism makes no mention of Branham, and his own article content makes no mention of him being “"principle architect”. Theroadislong (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It is in the legacy section and is a direct quote from Doug Weavers book. I included a footnoted version of the lead in an above section where I detailed my major revision. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes I see now, but I do wonder why the Restorationism article makes no mention of him at all if he was the "principle architect" of it?? Theroadislong (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not write that article. :) So I don't know. Weaver is available online at google books if you would like to check. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Charles Edward:, I checked and I am a bit puzzled as to why you say it is a "direct quote" from Weaver's book when it isn't. I agree with @Theroadislong:. If the statement is being made in this article, we should see a similar statement in Restorationism. But, here is what Weaver actually said:

"Branham has been called the "principle architect of restorationist thought" for the "new charistmatics" (Michael moriarty, The New Charismatics, Zondervan, 1992)."

What does Weaver's statement mean? One person (i.e. Moriarty) has made the claim. And it isn't the larger restorationist movement, it relates only to the "new charismatics". I certainly don't think Weaver's comment is strong enough to back up your edit. And I certainly wouldn't put it in the lede. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I received a somewhat surprising notice that I had been mentioned somewhere here. I have not found out where, or why. I do sometimes deal with "architects" but the other kind. However I was a bit surprised to find this line in the lede. "At the time, his meetings in the United States were the largest religious meetings ever held." Do they mean ever held in the United States because i strongly suspect that gatherings such as the Hajj and probably some in India are going to be larger than anything Branham puller together. Is there . . ...... anything else? Carptrash (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree and had added a section below to deal with this. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I just noticed this comment. I would argue that instead of removing it, we need to adjust it to reflect the source and keep it. (Which I have done now with a direct quote rather than a paraphrase) This clearly seems to be one of Branham's greatest legacies and is completely worthy of inclusion in the lead. Weaver is repeating Moriarty in agreement, not in disagreement. He is citing it as the reason Branham is noteworthy and important. So two sources are stating the same thing. That he is recognized as the "principle architect" of something for some people. For us to say he is not, we need a source saying he is not... Our opinion that he is not a "principle architect" is irrelevant. Two reliable sources state he is. Two reliable sources saying such is good enough for inclusion in the article. My sentence was just an attempt to paraphrase Weaver and Moriarty to avoid plagiarism, but I am fine with including the quote directly. Weaver is either an acceptable source or not. If we are going to discount his positive comments on Branham, then we must also discount his negative, in which case the article loses all its balance. We cannot selectively use the sources... that is not NPOV. Here is the full quote from Weaver:

Readers of American religion need to take another look at the ministry of William Branham, for in this thriving subculture of contemporary independent charismatic religion, Branham's legacy is alive and well. Because of his role as divine healer turned prophet, the major emphasis of this ematic biography , Branham has been called "principle architect of [modern] restorationist thought" for "new charismatics." (Cite to Moriarty) Popular "restoration prophets" Bill Hamon and Paul Cain, for exmaple, cite Branham's significant influence on their ministries. These men, among others, have spread Branham's legacy into charismatic groups like the Kansas City Prophets and the Vineyard Fellowship. (Note I added the word modern because clearly he is not speaking about historic restorationist teachings which date back centuries)

This is the second paragraph in Weaver's introduction. This is how he introduces the noteworthiness of the subject. Clearly this is among the most notable aspects of the subject. Ultimately, this goes back to my initial problem with this article: selective use of sources. If Weaver's statement about "principle architect" is irrelevant in the lead, then so his statement that his followers are a "cult of personality", which is also in the lead. If Moraiarity's statement about "principle architect" is irrelevant, then so is his statement about "revelatory madness", which is also in the lead. We cannot just say the negative and ignore the positive. We cannot selectively say the negative parts of the source are reliable, but the positive parts are unreliable - from the same source. Either the sources are reliable or not. I am completely open to adjusting things and making this article fair an neutral if it is not so. But that is accomplished by presenting the sources in a balanced manner, not by their selective use.

Penultimatly, to the point this is not mentioned in the wikipedia article on Restorationism is irrelevant. WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. It does not matter what other wikipedia articles say, it matters what reliable secondary sources say. I suppose I could go over and add this information there if you like. :) But it really makes no difference I think. (Humor)

Finally, the argument that something must be true to be included is also wrong. The threshold for inclusion is not truth but verifiablilty: WP:Wikipedia is wrong. This fact is verifiable by two reliable sources. If another reliable source says it is wrong, then we can include that disagreement. Even if Moriarty and Weaver's opinion is an error, it still goes in the article. If we can find a source that states their opinion is an error, they we could also put that in the article too. But ultimately, the sentence meets the criteria necessary for inclusion. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with the revised wording. My problem was that the statement, as it read, was not verifiable. It did not agree with what Weaver said. Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 16:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

As the OP, thank you for making the change, it now reflects accurately what the source says, though what it actually means is still rather vague!

No problem! I am glad we have a consensus. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:56, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I just finished reviewing Moriarty and I expanded the restorationism section to give more context. I also was able to get the bottom of Weaver's ambiguity in his quote of Moriarty. By "new charismatics" he is referring to the post-1990 world-wide charismatic movement. Note: Moriarty is also deeply critical of Branham, and Moriarty clearly views the term "principle architect of restorationist thought" as a negative title and not a compliment. I am going to adjust the lead sentence now to directly quote Moriarty, rather than Weaver quoting Moriarty. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Signature of William Branham

Can you please explain why his signature is important to have in the article? Darlig 🎸 ^{Talk to me} 17:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

To fill out the info box. Sort of like memorabilia. Featured articles on biographies generally include a signature (here is a couple examples of others I have wrote: Thomas R. Marshall, Eli Lilly, Elwood Haynes) (here are a few examples of featured articles on comparable religious figures, which I did not write: (Nostradamus, John Calvin) (Please note, I have generally used the article on Joseph Smith as a template for how to treat this subject fairly. It is a much more widely read article and the editors there have already hashed out alot of policy issues relating to an article like this.) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Branham and Jim Jones

The article fails to mention that Branham helped start the ministry of Jim Jones. Jones and Branham shared the pulpit in June 1956. This is detailed in Raven: The Untold Story of the Rev. Jim Jones and His People by Tim Reiterman. Taxee (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

And this somehow makes WB responsible for what happened in 1978, does it? Rev107 (talk) 06:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said that. It is, however, an important fact that is missing from this article. Taxee (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

How is it important to WB's life? Rev107 (talk)

How is it important? Are you serious? He helped launch Jim Jones and you don't think that it's important? Go read the Jim Jones article, they reference Branham and this article. It is an important fact related to Branham's life and ministry. Taxee (talk) 05:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

William Branham held meetings and had contact with literally thousands of ministers/churches, and it is not pertinent to this article to name them. This comment makes Jim Jones the subject instead of William Branham and therefore is not fitting. It is rightly left to the Jim Jones article. That he helped "launch" Jim Jones is an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electseed (talk • contribs) 11:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Taxee, I asked how is it important to WB's lfe? Whether WB was important in JJ's life is debatable but there is no evidence that JJ was important in WB's life. Rev107 (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

An important aspect of the article is the impact that Branham had on Christendom and on the US. There is no question that he had a significant impact. The question is what was the extent of that impact. The fact that he helped to launch Jim Jones is not insignificant given Jones later history.

Are you aware that Jones referred to what he was saying as "the Message"? Given the historical importance of both Jones and Branham in American history, this is a fact that should be included in this article. Remember that the article should be based on secondary sources whereas it is still based primarily on primary sources. Taxee (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you aware that John referred to what Jesus said as "the Message?" (1 John 1:5, 3:11) There is no connection to be drawn between JJ and WB based on Jim Jones use of the phrase. There is no evidence that Jim Jones had any impression or impact in the life or ministry of William Branham therefore the comment is not appropriate. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest Jim Jones was impacted by William Branham. The fact that William Branham ministered at this certain meeting where Jim Jones was present does not establish what you are seeking to establish. William Branham was in meetings with perhaps millions of people and tens of thousands of ministers over his lifetime, and so to reference Jim Jones on that bases—that inturn makes him the subject of this article, is out of order. Nevertheless, if there is information that Jim Jones was someway effected by William Branham, then the proper place to establish that is on the Jim Jones article. Electseed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.108.116 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Section removed. Rev107 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is everything that is negative about Branham removed or moved out of the main section on his biography even though is it confirmed in multiple secondary sources? Why is the emphasis on primary sources and not on secondary sources? Taxee (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not an issue of negative or positive - it is an issue of relevance and importance.

You deleted the section on the "seven seals" when Weaver states: "The most significant experience of the 1960's was Branham's opening of the seven seals of Rev 6-8". I have now included his reference. Rev107 (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the paragraph because the references were only to primary sources. If the information is backed up by secondary sources, then there is reason to include it. Given the new reference to a secondary source, I have no reason to exclude it (subject to verifying that the secondary source is correct). My concern is when, as was the case here, the only references are primary sources. The content that I deleted was only referenced to primary sources. Primary sources are to be used for illustration only, according to Wikipedia guidelines. Taxee (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edit reinstating the paragraph with a link to Weaver as a secondary source highlights the essence of my concerns. You use primary sources for the material and then put in the secondary source as a reference but the material is not changed to reflect what the secondary source actually says about the material. I have revised the paragraph (which probably needs a bit more work to accurately reflect what Weaver says about the subject of Branham's series on the seven seals but it now includes Weaver's analysis of the subject. The picture painted is much different than that derived from the primary sources. Taxee (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The information included on Jim Jones in the article is from a secondary source. In accordance with Wikipedia policy, if a quote of Jim Jones (i.e. a primary source) is included in the article it should be used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. The quote that I removed was used in a way that constituted original research. Jones' comments are difficult to interpret and therefore should be excluded and only referred to through the analysis from secondary sources. Taxee (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse, but including Jones in the article makes WB “guilty by association,” which is the very reason some editors placed him there in the first place. It’s using Wikipedia for activism, rather than information.

WB was a very gracious person and almost always mentioned the organizing ministers where he spoke. He did not mention Jones at all while in Indianapolis (the transcripts are readily available). However, he did mention Joseph Boze many times (Boze was an organizer of the Indy events). The only time WB ever acknowledged Jones in 1,206 recorded sermons was one sentence at a Chicago convention (again, organized by Joseph Boze). It looks to me like Boze was the contact with WB in Indy, which makes sense because Boze/WB were close associates. Further, the meetings were held at Cadle Tabernacle, which was an independent rented venue for public events, not Jones’ church. There were a lot of different people involved in the planning.

People’s Temple (Jim Jones) also advertised a convention hosting famous evangelists such as TL Osborn and FF Bosworth in 1957, the following year. Note that this is not mentioned by the WB critics, and not on the WP pages of those two evangelists.

I don’t think Jones “lured” these evangelists to Indy; I think they took the opportunity to “preach to lost souls” which would be the claim of any evangelist. There are activists out there who are doing their best to link Branham/Jones, and Wikipedia has been caught in the middle of this. As I stated in another section, they posted information on a forum hosted on San Diego State University servers, then tried to cite SDSU as the publisher of their material. The forum responded to my inquiries, saying that SDSU has basically nothing to do with the forum's content.

Imagine if Eleanor Roosevelt’s WP page said that her message inspired Jones to move forward in his ministry (Reiterman pg37), that Billy Graham’s WP page said that he gave Jones career advice (Jones’ sermon transcripts http://jonestown.sdsu.edu/?page_id=62945 ), or that Martin Luther King’s WP page said that MLK inspired Jones’ mass suicide? (Jones written communication https://www.nytimes.com/1978/11/26/archives/jim-jonesfrom-poverty-to-power-of-life-and-death-arrested-for-lewd.html ) Of course, those things are ridiculous, but so is putting Jones on this page.

The bottom line is that Jim Jones had no significance in the life or ministry of William Branham. Including him makes a very bold statement. Unfortunately, that is what the reader will remember when he/she is finished with the page. That's a shame, considering all the hard work that has gone into this lately. *I work at WB Ministries. DEvans (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I partially agree with you about reducing the impact of the reference to Jones in the article, but my rationale is a little different. None of Branham's biographers make any mention of his connection to Jones and there is not really anything that establishes properly the notability of the event. Kydd, Weaver, Harell, Larson, Crowder, and Hanegraff make no connection between Jones and Branham. That not does mean there was no connection - just that it was not notable enough for them to mention it. I look at it like this, the NAACP gave Jones the Martin Luther King Jr. Award in 1977, but there is no mention of that in the NAACP article because that would be undue weight. Similarly it is undue weight here. There is only two sources that make the connection between Branham and Jones, and one (Collins) is a problematic primary source. The only reliable source that connects Branham to Jones is the Rieterman biography on Jones. Is this fact worth a mention in Jim Jones article - yes. Is it worthy of inclusion in this article? I lean towards no. In a brief review of this talk page, seems there are seven editors in favor of removing the paragraph and one in favor of keeping it. It seems like consensus is to remove. Additionally, during GA review, the GA reviewer made the same assessment I have arrived at - the Jones piece seems to not be noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion. This opinion coupled with agreement of seven editors, including the GA reviewer in favor of removal, and one in favor of keeping seems to be a clear consensus. I am going to proceed with the removal. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Having discussed this issue with another editor I am going to attempt to reestablish consensus on the removal of this statement. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

• Not Supported

It is very important to show all connections that branham had in his colorful career. As he was purported to be a prophet (and made many allusions about it) I think it is important to show that he obviously missed the boat on this case,as on many other instances that are a matter of public record. Keep the connection. Blistersteel (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Major Revision

I completed a through fact checking of the article. From this check stems most issues I found. Here is a full summary of my changes. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)}

Synopsis of the article's major sources

It appears that Weaver, Harrell are the two best sources on multiple levels. The are fairly neutral, well researched, and academically published. Burgess, Crowder, Larson, Hanegraaff, and Moriarty seem to be tertiary, and are largely based on Weaver and Harrell, and contain multiple direct quotes to them. Duyzer and Collins are very close to the subject, close enough to qualify as primary source in my opinion. Duyzer also seems to be an outlyer in his views; Harrell, Weaver, Crowder, and Hanegraaff report dates and events in general harmony, whereas Duyzer follows a unique timeline of events and openly disagrees with Weaver and Harrell on some of their assessments. Babsinksi is odd, in that it is really just a biography of the writer who happens to mention his interaction with Branham followers. I have used all these sources, but I am conveying an honest assessment of them. I think they should be weighed accordingly for their merit. In my opinion, if want to add each conflicting detail, it would be best to add a footnote section and then foot note the least common asertions, and follow the more general consensus in the body of the article. For example, have the body state what Weaver and Harrell say, but footnote Duyzer's disagreements. I have not undertaken this in this article, but I have done so in other articles I have authored. (For example, see the Notes section in the Battle of Tippecanoe featured article I authored.) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Issues I am correcting in my revision

• The sources seem to be selectively used. For example, both Weaver and Harrel are somewhat apologetic and sympathetic towards the topic, but that does not come through at all in the article. Even the most critical sources, Collins and Duyzer offer alot of positive content on the topic that seems to be ignored in favor of the more sensational negative parts. This seems to be a theme throughout. It seems that at some point in the past, this article has suffered from a biased editor or series of editors. It is not obviously biased in its current state, but when comparing to the actual sources that bias becomes apparent. Babinski, for instance, is used to reference alot of really strange things that make Branham seem like a wing nut, but his ultimate conclusion of Branaham's followers is left out. He states "In spite of their odd beliefs they are honest and hard working citizens and their inclusion in the book of cults is unfair." In looking through the history of the article it looks like several editors have made a commendable effort to make the article fairer, but I suspect they lacked access to all the sources to be able to fully rectify the issue or validate all the statements in the article. Nearly every source has been used in this selective way and I have tried to rectify this issue. There are multiple examples of this, I have detailed them in the fact check section.
• There are several "sources" that are not used to cite any part of the article. Since they are not actually used as a source, I am moving those to a further reading section. If citations are added, then they could be moved back to source section
• Because of the controversial nature of the article, I intend to put a citation on every sentence. I will remove or adjust each sentence as needed. I have access to most of the sources listed in the article and will assume the first reference following the sentence is intended to reference it. I will consult the source before adding a new citation.
• Collins and Duyzer are both problematic sources and are used to make the most controversial claims in the article. In reviewing the sources though, the article actually goes beyond what the sources in their claims. Collins: http://seekyethetruth.com/About.aspx Duyzer: http://wmbranham.net/ I will remove everything referenced to their self published works, and carefully review the remainder to ensure it accurately reflects the source and is properly attributed within the article.
• Overall, all critical elements of the article need better attribution within the article itself. I will improve this. It is ok to have criticisms, or to use two sources that offer conflicting information. Buy we need to make sure we are conveying to the reader who is asserting what, that way the assertion is presented not as wikipedia's assertion, but as the assertion or claim of the source.
• The article is a little rough in its flow. I intend to use the source to expand the article by about double its current length, and therein address the flow issues.
  • The sources offer a great deal of content for the healing revival section. As that is what the topic is most known for, it makes sense to make it a more significant section within the article. It seems like that is the most notable period of the subject's life, based on the sources, whereas the later part of the life is generally agreed to have ended in somewhat increasing obscurity. I intend to weight the article accordingly. Right now the bulk of the content is focused on the doctrines he began teaching after the healing revival period came to and end. This is a bit of a undue weight issue, but easily addressed.
  • The legacy section seems too narrowly focused based on my read through of weaver and harrel. I intend to rework that section. He seems to have a great impact on the the healing beliefs of some denominations, and beyond that
  • The lead needs stregthened
• I want to try and locate sources for some of the basic biographical data that is currently unsourced; marriages, children, etc. If this cannot be found in the secondary sources, I will use the primary sources for this information.
• I think it is a little strange that two sources are used assert four other sources are unfit for use. It is normal for sources on a topic like this to espouse different viewpoints. Minimally the way it is currently presented needs to be changed. It violate the MOS, and the claims need to be attributed. I also have never seen such a thing directly in the reference section. I will see if there is a way to work it into the body of the article instead.
• There must be some more pictures we can add to this article. I will try to find some. I intend to make a day trip and see if I can gather some photos of notable sites. Also, copyright has expired on several of the primary source biographies, so we should be able to use some of the pictures in those books as illustrations.
• There are some minor MOS issues; forced image size, block quote usage, etc. I will correct these
• There are alot of direct lifting of the wording from Weaver. This present an issue of plagarism, as they are not presented as quotes. I am going to try and paraphrase as many such instances as I find to eliminate this issue, and where I cannot, I will present the sentance as a direct quote from Weaver.
• "Denial of Eternal Hell" - I have changed this title to "Annihilationism". "Denial of Eternal Hell" rings as an accusation to me. It seems this doctrine is held by a significant number of denominations, so why not call it by its theological name?
• "View on Women" - Weaver is the only source used in this section. Weaver however categories this a subset of Branham's opposition to modern culture. I am therefore retitling this "Views on modern culture", and expanding the section to properly place in context this component

Issues identified in fact checking

There are numerous sentences that were not supported by their given citation, but I was able to find alternative citations which I have added. Some things I could not verify though. The list follows.

• Jim Jones, the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple, tried to use Branham's fame to boost himself into the limelight. Jones, who was later known for the mass murder and suicide at Jonestown in November 1978, organized a religious convention that took place June 11 through June 15, 1956, at Cadle Tabernacle in Indianapolis. To draw crowds, Jones needed a religious headliner, so he arranged to share the pulpit with Branham. - Page 9-10 of this source has nothing that supports this statement... https://www.amazon.com/Raven-Untold-Story-Jones-People/dp/1585426784 There is a mention of branham on page 50, and I am using that to rewrite the paragraph.
• Sheryl, J. Greg (2013). "The Legend of William Branham" (PDF). The Quarterly Journal. Personal Freedom Outreach. 33 (3). ISSN 1083-6853. - This source is primarily a theological publication that is advancing the theological viewpoint of their own organization. According to their website, their peer review is done by associated theologians. The publication alleges that several major christian denominations are in fact cults. It is certainly a biased source. Currently, its only use in the article is to source a statement that some primary sources are biased in favor of Brhanham. There is already another reference for that statement, so I am removing the sole citation to Sheryl and moving it to further reading section
• He believed that five of the seven predictions, relating to world politics, science, and the moral condition of the world, had been fulfilled. The final two visions, one related to the Roman Catholic Church gaining power in the United States and the second detailing the destruction of the United States, would be fulfilled by 1977, subsequent to which Christ would return. - The source cited does not support this. Babinksi makes no connection to "seven prophecies", and only mentions an earthquake prophecy. I am rewriting to this to actually align with the source, as follows: Branham predicted the rapture would happen in 1977, preceded by various world-wide disasters including including Los Angeles sinking during an earthquake, the unification of denominational Christianity, and the Pope rising to world power.
• Branham's most controversial revelation was his claim to be the end-time "Elijah" prophet of the Laodicean Church age. - Synth? OR? The sources state the claim, but none call it "Branham's most controversial revelation". Two of the sources (Larson and Babinksi) do not actually state any opinion on the claim, other than to record it. Duyzer points to serpent seed as his most controversial doctrine. Weaver sort of supports the "most controversial" statement, but only narrowly so. Because of the conflicting views, I am demoting this to just "a controversial..." This is most impact because this sentence is also in the lead.
• For the most part, Branham, his message, and his followers are little known in the Western world. Bob Larson, in Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality, refers to Branham as an "odd historical footnote". - the given source does not say this at all, in fact it is at odds with the source. This is a misreading of the source. It is clear Larson is saying he has included Branham in his book because he is NOT "an odd historical footnote," but because of the "lasting legacy" of his ministry. I am rewording this to reflect the source
• Given the lack of corroborating evidence for this event, Baptist historian Doug Weaver believes it is possible that Branham later embellished the incident when he was achieving success in the healing revival. - I think this is a misread of the source. First, a lack of corroborating references is not the basis for Weaver to question the event. (He actually sites supposed witnesses) Weaver questions the event because Branham failed to attach much significance to it in his early career and because Branham appears to have re-interpreted the event in his later career. Secondly, Weaver advances two theories on this event, one apologetic, one not. The current statement is a misuse of this source to just include one of the two alternatives given. I have adjusted this sentence accordingly.
• Branham stated that his first exposure to Pentecostalism was in 1936; however, the First Pentecostal Baptist Church he attended prior to 1933 believed in most of the basic doctrines of Pentecostalism. As a result, Branham appears to have been exposed to Pentecostalism from the date of his conversion to Christianity. - I have struggled trying to understand this from the given source. I think the sentance does not effectively communicate the nuance that is indicated by Weaver.
  • Here is the issues
    • Weaver agrees Branham's first interaction with Pentecostals was in 1936
    • Weaver agreesthe church Branham was first converted at was the First Pentecostal Baptist Church, which was pre-1936 (Which seems a contradiction at first, but is not as you consider Weaver's other points)
    • Weaver says Branham was a Baptist at the time he was converted
    • Weaver says the First Pentecostal Church had a Baptist pastor
    • Weaver says First Pentecostal Baptist Church observed some Pentecostal doctrines (Divine healing being the only stated Pentecostal doctrine held by the church)
    • Weaver says Branham knew more about Pentecostals than he let on in 1936
  • I believe this is the correct way to understand these facts:
    • 1. Branham attended a Baptist denominational church at the time of his conversion
    • 2. Branham's first interaction with a Pentecostal denominational church was in 1936.
    • 3. Branham was nominally a baptist for the early part of his ministry
    • 4. Branham knew more about pentecostal beliefs than he initially let on in 1936 because he was exposed to some pentecostal doctrines during his time at the Baptist church
  • I do not believe this sentence accurately reflects these conclusions and I cannot see how to draw another conclusion from the facts as Weaver present them, therefore I am adjusting this sentence to the following: The First Pentecostal Baptist Church he attended at the time of his conversion was a nominally Baptist church that observed some Pentecostal doctrines, including divine healing. As a result, Branham appears to have been exposed to some Pentecostal teachings from his conversion. He was first exposed to a Pentecostal denominational church in 1936, where he was invited to join them, but refused.

He was advertised as the pastor of the "Pentecostal Tabernacle" in 1935 and appears to have paid off his loan for the "Billie Branham Pentecostal Tabernacle" in 1936. http://searchingforvindication.com/2013/06/30/First-Appearances-Of-The-Pentecostal-Tabernacle/ Less wrong (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is unfortunately a primary source and cannot be used. Weaver is the only secondary source that discusses this topic and I believe the article fairly represents his position: It was a Baptist church that observed some Pentecostal doctrines, divine healing being the only one explicitly stated. This article, also a primary source, seems to agree with Weaver (http://en.believethesign.com/images/0/06/VofHealingOct50pg14.jpg), Davis was a Baptist preacher but the church Pentecostal. The resolution to the conflict seems most logically to be Weaver's assessment: It was a Baptist church that observed some Pentecostal doctrines. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• An analysis of his teaching on the identity of this Laodicean prophet-messenger reveals conflicting and confusing assertions and disclaimers. - I have not been able to locate a source for this sentence, I am removing it.
• Branham believed that he was (and desired to be) the eschatological prophet, but also had doubts about his role. - The given source does not support the sentence as wrote. Weaver actually says all the characteristics Branham described matched his own life, but Branham did not directly claim to be the messenger. On page 132, it does say Branam desired to be that prophet, but I cannot find a reference in Weaver, and on page 133 Weavers claims Branham likely privately believed he was, but again on page 132, that he left the interpretation up to his followers. So I have updated the sentance as follows. Branham desired to be the eschatological prophet, but never stated he was. Weaver believes Branham considered himself to be the prophet he spoke of, but had self-doubt. Branham left the interpretation open to his followers, who widely accepted that he was indeed that prophet.

Can I quote Branham? It does not appear that he had doubts, but rather that indirect statements were more effective and more frequently used. He was rather direct about being a prophet - 400+ times. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XVVkPHoffAgkbwA-we26yvnvVGhHX1bvIGCdzOe2k0c/edit?usp=sharing Less wrong (talk) 00:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We cannot use primary sources, unfortunately. Weaver is the only author who deals with topic in detail and I am reflecting his viewpoint. I see what Weaver is saying, Branham clearly believed he was the prophet. But there was never a full throated declaration by him saying "I am the prophet with the Elijah anointing and Laodecean messenger who is here to herald the second coming." It is frequently implied, but never directly stated. He said he was a prophet and a messenger, but never specifically that he was that prophet or messenger. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Although not always consistent with each other, his primary concerns were eschatology, the denial of an eternal hell, Oneness Pentecostalism, predestination, eternal security and the serpent's seed., This is difficult to source as written. I am breaking it up into separate sentence so each part can be properly attributed. Additionally I think this is a misread of weaver. Weaver says his primary concern was solely eschatology, and then lists the othor items as things of secondary importance.
• Branham asserted that his doctrinal teachings were given to him by divine revelation. - this is not supported by the given source. At this point I have not come across a reference supporting it (although it seems like a pretty straight forward thing to say, it is OR or SYNTH to include it without a source.)
• The doctrine of Annihilationism was not a new concept to Pentecostalism as Charles Fox Parham had also advocated the doctrine. - this is not in the given source at all... Clearly a misure of the source and someone trying to mislead a reader... However, I have found another source which generally supports the point (https://books.google.com/books?id=6GLISQjySHwC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=parham+eternal+hell&source=bl&ots=vMzOiq7mvr&sig=Ek30WBFfWYJlB0WkLGADg0oQqRY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKz97T877ZAhWozIMKHSfuDNYQ6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=parham%20eternal%20hell&f=false), and I am rewording the sentence accordingly.
• Although Branham had taught the doctrine since 1957, he suggested in 1960 that the Holy Spirit had just revealed it to him as one of the mysteries that God was revealing in the "end-time". - I think this is another misreading of the source. It is not clear whether the author is saying Branham claimed to have been revealed the revelation in 1960, or if in 1960 he was referring to an earlier point when it was a revelation. The amazement of the author seems to be the fact that he claimed the revelation to be new, as opposed to something that was already in circulation in Pentecostalism - not that Branham contradicting himself. I am rewriting accordingly
• and it was also reported that Branham had told some Trinitarians that he agreed with them, but that he felt obligated to the "Jesus Only" Pentecostals because they had supported him early in the revival. I cannot locate a supporting reference for this statement. I am moving it to here until a reference can be found. Removing this does seem to substantially alter the section.
• Branham taught that Eve and the serpent had sexual intercourse and Cain was their resulting offspring, and that consequently every woman potentially carried the literal seed of the devil. this is directly lifted from Weaver. To avoid plagerism I am adjusting as follows - Branham taught that the story of fall in the Garden of Eden was allegorical. He interpreted the allegory to mean that the serpent had sexual intercourse with Eve and Cain was their resulting offspring. "Consequently every woman potentially carried the literal seed of the devil," according to Weaver's analysis of the doctrine."
• Branham's attitude toward culture was a very extremist perspective of "Christ against Culture", that education was Satan's snare for intellectual Christians who rejected the supernatural and Satan's tool for obscuring the "simplicity of the Message and the messenger". - this is another direct quote from Weaver that is not properly attributed and equals plagiarism. I am adjusting accordingly. - According to Weaver, Branham's attitude toward culture was "a very extremist perspective of "Christ against Culture"", that education was "Satan's snare for intellectual Christians who rejected the supernatural" and "Satan's tool for obscuring the 'simplicity of the Message and the messenger'".
• However, other than those that still follow him as their prophet, Branham has faded into obscurity. - that is in the lead. I have not found any source to support this. In fact, most sources outright contradict it and point to his strong lasting legacy and impact on the charismatic move and televangelism.
• However, other than those that still follow him as their prophet, Branham seems to have faded into obscurity. Robert Price, as quoted by Douglas Weaver, summarized Branham's legacy as follows:"In the days of his prominence, the 1950's, what Spirit-filled believer did not know his name? Yet today, we may wonder, what believer does?" - there is not page number given in this cite, and I did not find this in my read through of the book.

Suggest a few minor revisions: In the "Opposition to modern culture" section, third paragraph, it says, "When he was given a new Cadillac as a gift, he kept it parked in his garage for two years out of embarrassment before giving it away." Weaver pg 109 does not say that he gave it away. He actually had that car until his death. Suggest removing that part of the sentence on the basis that the source does not agree.

In the "Eschatology" section, first paragraph, it says, "The sermons closely aligned with the teachings of C.I. Scofield and Clarence Larkin..." There is an error in the citation. It should be Weaver pg 99, not Weaver pg 103. On that same citation, Weaver does not say that WB's teachings on the subject align with those of Clarence Larkin. It'll need a different citation if you want to mention Larkin's work. Suggest adding a citation to Larkin's book on "Dispensational Truth." Later in that same paragraph, there's a typo "Malaci" should be "Malachi".

Under the "Legacy And Influence" section, third paragraph, the information published in Weaver pg 151-153 is outdated. You can easily retrieve current numbers of WB followers (I don't want to get in trouble for a COI, or I'd give you the website). *I work for WB Ministries. DEvans (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead with citations

MOS prohibits cites in the lead, but I am including here for reference. Note all statements have been verified as being present in the body with a citation.

William Marrion Branham (April 6, 1909 – December 24, 1965) was an influential American Christian minister and faith healer who initiated the post-World War II healing revival. He is recognized as the "principle architect of modern restorationist thought" who left a lasting impact on televangelism and the modern charismatic move. The first American deliverance minister to successfully campaign in Europe, his ministry reached global audiences with major campaigns held in North America, Europe, Africa, and India. At the time, his meetings in the United States were the largest religious meetings ever held in most cities.

Branham's meetings as a faith healer started in 1946. He claimed to have received an angelic visitation on May 7, 1946 commissioning his worldwide ministry. He held numerous meetings around the world resulting in thousands of coverts and numerous reports of miracles. His ministry spawned many emulators that quickly set in motion the broader healing revival that subsequently transitioned in the modern evangelical and charismatic movement. His campaigning and popularity began to to decline in 1955 as the Pentecostal churches began to withdraw their support from the healing campaigns for primarily financial reasons. Branham transitioned into a teaching ministry by 1960 which became increasingly controversial amongst the Pentecostalism. Branham developed a unique theology that was primarily a mixture of Calvinist and Arminian doctrines, with a heavy focus on Branham's own unique eschatological views. Branham's espoused a controversial revelation that indicated he was the end-time "Elijah" prophet of the Laodicean Church age. In his last days, Branham's followers placed him at the center of a Pentecostal cult of personality that continues to this day. Branham died in a car accident in 1965.

Note: I do not personally like this sentance: In his last days, Branham's followers placed him at the center of a Pentecostal cult of personality that continues to this day. Only one source states this, and three of the articles other main sources disagree with the label of cult. This is fully explained in the body, offering both views. I have not yet determined how to fairly summarize this in the lead, so I have left it as is for now.

Discussion

Thank you for the revision. I just finished reading it and I think it does a good job of better representing the broad variety of opinions from the authors. Polarizing figures like Rev. Branham naturally create extreme views in opposite ways among authors covering their lives, which makes it difficult to bring a balance to their wiki page. I think overall you've done a good job. Idealee (talk) 13:22, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

This editor has made very few edits on Wikipedia and mostly to William M. Branham. Theroadislong (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

This is true, but does not invalidate their opinion. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I want to thank you people who have gotten interested in this article, as it has been out of balance for a long time. For one thing, whenever Branham predicted 1977 would be the end, he always said that this was his personal prediction and he always said "I can't say that the Lord told me that".

Also, if you look at the references, they are nearly all Weaver's opinions. Opinions..... not what Branham said at all. Only Weaver's opinions or his own personal thoughts. Weaver did have a lot of truth in his book, but when you mix that with the negative opinion that radiates throughout his entire book, it makes everything off-balance. The only way to balance this page is to use other sources more than Weaver. Danpeanuts (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2018Danpeanuts (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand your viewpoint. When I first reviewed the article, I found almost all of Weaver's negative assessments were in the article, but few of his positive ones. I think his negative assessments are valid because of the nature of his source. The negative assessments (and positive) are all now clearly attributed in the article so the reader knows... For example, the "personality cult" and "misogynistic" parts are from weaver - Valid. But the "principle architect" and "first deliverance minister to campaign in Europe" and "lasting legacy on charismatic and evangelical Christianity" are also in Weaver, but were left out. It is unfair to use a source in a biased way like that. The absence of his positive assessments was unfortunate. I am hoping that this has been largely corrected to bring more balance overall. (Ditto for Harrell and Larson, but Weaver was most selectively used of all) WP:RNPOV gives us a solid guideline for writing articles on matters of religious faith, and I have done my best to ensure that this criteria is met. There may still be room for improvement. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Charles Edward:Please take a look at the "Legacy and influence" section, second paragraph. It says "Most doctrines Branham espoused in the closing years of his ministry were rejected by the Charismatic movement, which viewed them as "revelatory madness".[note 9] Charismatics are more apologetic towards Branham's early ministry." It seems like a contradictory statement to me, but I don't have Moriarty's book to check it. Please take a look.

Also, the opening paragraph says, "His divergent teachings were deemed increasingly controversial by his Charismatic and Pentecostal contemporaries, who subsequently disavowed his teachings as 'revelatory madness'". However, the quoted sentence in the text says, "Most doctrines Branham espoused in the closing years of his ministry were rejected by the Charismatic movement, which viewed them as "revelatory madness". It reads in the opening paragraph like all his contemporaries "disavowed his teachings as 'revelatory madness'". This is obviously not the case from reading the entire article; in fact, I'd say that "most" of his teachings were fairly mainstream Apostolic Oneness. The few outliers are listed in the doctrine section. Please change that sentence in the opening paragraph to accurately reflect the text.

I haven't seen the Branham page in a while. It looks really nice. Misterniceguy (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I will try to take a look tomorrow. I do have access to the source. Probably means most of his "new" doctrines, as opposed to most overall. Thanks for your copy edit and fact checking! From memory, Moriarty indicates the healing revival was accepted by the charismatics, they accepted and believed the "signs and wonders", but they generally rejected his anti-denominational views, unique dispensational views, serpent seed, predestination and eternal security views, and moved away from his traditional holiness views. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I finally got to review the source. I see your point, the lead is not as precise as the body. I have tried to clarify. His contemporaries accepted his healing revival period teachings, but generally rejected his post-revival teachings. That is what is attempting to be conveyed, to show the break. Many of his teachings were indeed mainstream to Pentecostalism per Weaver, but he definitely introduced a string of "new" doctrines that they considered wrong and rejected. I think its improved now. Feel free to adjust as you see fit. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Number of members

@Theroadislong: I made an edit to the opening of the page in reference to a statement in the last paragraph. This is perfectly acceptable. Here is your comment to my edit "remove puffery which is only sourced to his own website." What are you talking about? Going back to the sourced information, there is only one place to get those kinds of numbers. Do you want to use information that is outdated over 30 years in a Wiki article? Plus, that information was taken from the same place! If this was Joseph Smith's page, then the Mormon church would have the most accurate numbers. It would be impossible for an author to do his/her own research for that type of thing. That's why it's OK to cite websites for certain things. What's with the attitude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterniceguy (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Theroadislong: I just checked Mormonism, Catholicism, and Assemblies Of God pages in Wikipedia. Every one refers to the organization's facts as far as membership. There is a precedence set on Wikipedia pages. What's the beef? Misterniceguy (talk) 14:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The source says 'Voice Of God Recordings serves about 2 million people worldwide who have a desire to receive Brother Branham's material. More than half of those are in Africa." it just didn't seem like a reliable source backed up by anything, but if that's what other religions do, feel free to revert. Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do a little more research and see what I can turn up. Misterniceguy (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The book The Healer-prophet: William Marrion Branham [1] says that there were no membership rolls. Does receiving Branham's material make people members? Theroadislong (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know that. I think it is important for the article to say how many people follow his teaching, because the article mentions his followers a number of times. I'll email the listed website and see what they say about the numbers, just for my own information. "Are they or are they not members, and what published information can we refer to?" In any event, 1986 numbers don't mean much. Misterniceguy (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

After doing a little more research, I have come to the conclusion that when you are "a member" of a religious movement or sect (Assemblies Of God, Baptist, etc), you are almost always speaking about a local church congregation that has core values in common with a wider group of people. Membership seems to be no more than a mailing list for church newsletters, etc; so the statement about no membership roles of Branhams is the case for most faiths. Voice of God Recordings' numbers come from their mailing lists, which they said are compiled by their offices and churches in various parts of the world. Plus, every Wikipedia page I looked at for religious movements/denominations recognizes numbers from the most accepted "headquarters" webpage. Therefore, I think it is appropriate to revert the opening statement to the more current numbers. Charles Edwards: I apologize, I just noticed that this article is under review, so you probably didn't need this controversy. However, it does make it a more complete article.Misterniceguy (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning? The statement "Today, there are an estimated 2 million followers of Branham's teachings" is absolutely NOT supported by the source which says "The 'Voice Of God Recordings serves about 2 million people worldwide who have a desire to receive Brother Branham's material." Being on a mailing list doesn't make you a follower of the church? Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I simply think there should be a number of followers, members, subscribers, worshippers, admirers, believers, or some other semantically semi-accurate title that describes how many people follow his teachings today. They said (written communication) that between 2 and 3 million people claim to follow his teachings. Any idea on how we can include this factoid in the article? I didn't mean to cause a fuss.Misterniceguy (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

A listing at this website would have helped [2] where The Catholic church of the USA is listed as having 10,000 members for example. As for wanting some "semi-accurate title that describes how many people follow his teachings" I think that is appallingly sloppy. We simply can't say that they have two million followers based on that poor quality primary source. Theroadislong (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to appall you with my sarcasm. The fact is that Wikipedia (and every other encyclopedia, etc) almost always uses primary-sourced data for this type of thing. Here's why: number of members is not an interpretive subject that can draw from other sources. It's a number calculated by a central source who has the only access to the data. It's almost impossible to prove it wrong. It's strange to me that what is acceptable on every other religious page I can find, is not acceptable on this one. This whole thing is strange to me. Here's a little more strangeness: I went to the website you referenced, went to the Catholic Church page, and they linked me right back to the official Catholic Church website. By the way, the Catholic Church has not had 10,000 members in the United States for more than 200 years; it's now closer to 70 million. Good luck trying to put that secondary-source information on the Catholic Church page. I'll try to reword my so-called sloppiness in a way to more accurately represent the sentence at the end of the article. Misterniceguy (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, at last we are actually reporting what the source says, though a secondary source would be preferable (even if inaccurate}. Wikipedia is not concerned with the facts only what the reliable sources sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The following statement in teh article has a primary source tag required tag. I have removed the tag, but if you insist on putting it back lets just delete the sentence instead.

In 2018, Voice of God Recordings claimed to serve Branham-related support material to about two million people through the William Branham Evangelical Association.

So here is why I believe this is fine as is. The sentence says that they claim that they have served material to two million people. The reference is a reference to their claim. This is not presented as a fact, it is presented as a claim they make. It can be established by the source that they do indeed make the claim. Thus, it is acceptable proof for the sentence as wrote. Per WP:PRIMARY, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." I think the primary source is used in this acceptable way, we are repeating their claim, and referencing their own publication of their claim. At any rate, I don't think we are going to find anything better than this out there at the current time. So in effort to keep the article clean, I would suggest we remove the sentence if we cannot resolve the tag. (Note I added the original sentance. Before that the most current number was from 1986, so I was just attempting to give some type of a current figure for the reader to understand.) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

References