Talk:William M. Branham

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓



Contents

[edit] Cult comments

I refer to these comments added on 18:38, 25 May 2008 by "130.179.152.65"
Current Followers Beliefs
Those who currently follow the teachings of William Branham are often referred to as 'Branhamites' by other Christian denominations, as a way of detaching and disowning it as anything more than a cult practice. "Branhamism" is a label used to highlight the devotion of the Follower's cult like devotion to William Branham and his Message.

I do not deny that some religious organisations regard the followers of William Branham as belonging to a cult ...and some religious organisations regard the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon. However, this is an encyclopedia and people's opinions cannot be stated as fact even if they are based on "extensive experiential knowledge".
If the "cult" accusation is to be included, then it needs to be properly referenced and presented as an opinion only Rev107 (talk) 09:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment should definitely be sourced. At the the very least, the comment should be qualified, as only some of Branham's followers would fall under the cult label. The majority, if not the overwhelming majority, are not much different than any other alter-christian group like Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses. The comment should probably be removed if no source is available. Charles Edward 12:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Kennah, J. Link

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)