Talk:Branhamism

Merging articles
The following comments below are from someone who wants to mislead people. Go to www.branham.org and find out for yourself and not let the ramblings of a former Message believing backslider influence you. Go straight to the source and see for yourself. _________________________________________

Someone who believes the doctrines of William Branham will be 'religously opposed' to merging 'message of the hour' into Branhamism as they would be 'religously opposed' to anything representing denominationalism. To keep these ideas separate, it is suggested that this article be recreated under 'Message of the Hour' rather than the controversial 'Branhamism'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.255.242 (talk) 21:41, July 10, 2006


 * I completely disagree. If you have any knowledge of this group you would understand how impossible it would be to create an article that would be accepted by them as legitimate. I think this artcle should be kept as an abstract outside view of Branhamism and The Message of The Hour kept as a more detailed look at them from the inside. To just be plain and frank about his teachings and statements, even if not being judgement, would be ripped to pieces as soon as certain ones of them got ahold of the page. Just read the quote alittle further down the page from the one respondig to a statement about another point on branhamism being from branham. Cool10191 (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the term 'Branhamism' Derogatory?
The term Branhamism signifies the doctrine and practices of William Branham and his followers. The term is not intrinsically derogatory anymore than comparable terms such as Calvinism or Lutheranism. The term is particularly apt as typically followers of Branham not only adopt his theological views but also his dress code and other preferences. Why many followers of Branham find the term derogatory is partly because they sometimes use it themselves in a derogatory sense to describe other factions of Branham's followers, particularly those with views more extreme than themselves. More importantly since followers of Branham typically regard themselves having the true Christian doctrine they dislike terms that remind them of the human origin of their destinctive beliefs and that these beliefs are not normative of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.246.13.155 (talk) 02:23, January 10, 2006

I don't beleive branhamism is a derogatory term. I beleive it is because it sound similar to Branhamite, which many Branham followers are called, might stir them up a little bit. Cool10191 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Those people that believe Wm. Branham to have been a prophet don't call themselves 'Branhamites', while Baptists, Catholics or others do refer to themselves by those terms. As such, the term 'Branhamism", or any derivation thereof, is clearly an [exonym].  They most commonly refer to themselves as 'Message Believers', a reference to the message that Wm. Branham brought which is referred to by them as the 'Message of the Hour'.    Taxee (talk) 22:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Followers of Branham definantly do not call typically themselves Branhamites, they call themselves christians. It is a term used commonly by 'outsiders'. Although some in the movement do call the members of other sects of the movement branhamites.(http://www.thecontender.org/read/bridesanointing4.htm) I have also heard the term commonly among junior jackson's (and junior jackson before he died) followers to refer to the fringe elements that believe branham is god.(http://www.thecontender.org/read/bodyofchrist07-4.htm)


 * On above page Junior Jackson says:
 * Amen: I see it! Praise the Lord! Yes saints, the third pull was being worked in our midst, and we were privileged to witness the introduction of it. Did we not? Well if the third pull is to be continued on, is it another gift? No. It has got to be continued on in a revelatory way. I know when I say this, there are a bunch of Branhamites that would want to hang me.
 * Just search branhamite on those pages for the full quotes. I have also read sermons by Peary Green where he says he is proud to be called a "branhamite" if that means he believes in Branham. NO doubt similar quotes could be found among Branhams other followers. Also, I have twice heard the word Branhamite on TBN, both times by Paul Crouch. It is also a common term in relgious circles in the Jeffersonville Indiana area, but I am not certain how widely it is used elsewhere. So I still think it fair since the followers are generally labeled Branhamites that their faith, by extrapolation, is Branhamism. I think all the sects fall under the umbrella of "branhamism" but each sect should be noted for their distinct features.Cool10191 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The terms "Branhamite" and "Branhamism" are as derogatory as labels used to describe any minority group that are not accepted by that minority group. Respect for differences in our society requires that we call people what they choose to call themselves whether they are African-Americans, Latinos, homosexuals, or Message Believers. Rev107 (talk) 13:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no secondary sources that validate this claim. Therefore, there is no appropriate support for it being a derogatory term.  Taxee (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

So what is the end result of what you are saying?
Use the term or not? Can't tell from the above messages. NLOleson 18:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The following quote from above is made in ignorance. "More importantly since followers of Branham typically regard themselves having the true Christian doctrine they dislike terms that remind them of the human origin of their destinctive beliefs and that these beliefs are not normative of Christianity." For one it is important to study a subject before claiming knowledge. There are people still alive today that have been healed in the "branham meetings" If "branham doctrine" was of human origin, how is it that these people were healed? William Branham claimed that he had no ability to heal. If he had no ability to heal, I ask the question? Who is it that healed those people. Also why is it that the people who are critical are not healing likewise? There is an ante to put down first. I would put this out that the person who wrote the above statement is trying to make "branhamism" a human origin. My advice to the brother would be to do a simple word search on the internet. Use the words: ism and branham. It is easy to see why it is wrong to use the term branhamism. Branham wanted to be a skunk skinner. A hunter, a trapper. The term branhamism if it could be used would be to discribe someones humanity. What happened with this man was extra-ordinary. It is very important to quote facts. If one is to be a critic, one should examine the subject without bias. I would ask if it is humanly possible to have a man walk into a stadium and have truck loads of wheelchairs and crutches hauled out. (these crutches being from sick people healed.) To be in a different perspective, would you go for healing? "Branham" claims that the One who healed those people is the "Same Yesterday, today and forever." Meaning that the healing is still available all the way to the consumation. This is not Branhamism. Branham claimed his "message" was to declare Him that is here. He claimed that Christ is here. The term you are looking to use is Christianity. However it has been stated that these claims Branham was making are not normative of Christianity. I was of the understanding that Branham claimed that Christ is alive. He claims it is not a question of wheither he (Christ) would heal you, It is wheither He (Christ) is alive. He claimed that after 2000 years Christ keeps his promise. I challenge those who critic or call the teachings of branham "Branhamism"; to search the scriptures with the actual teachings and see if what he said to be a of human origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.105.144 (talk) 19:20, March 22, 2007

Quote above here, if the doctrines Branham preached where not from Branham but from God, does that make Branham God since he spoke them? You see how statements like that cause you to be viewed by outsiders? Branham called this church age Laodecia, could branhams followers then be called Laodecians without offending you? There has to be some acceptable term that can be used to refer to the doctrines and their followers as a whole, and it can't be just christian because that will really confuse outsiders who read this article. If not branhamism then what? And I do not think branham was a nut, he was something special and real. But if you want to put this in article for people to read a term has to be used to point to it's distinction from other forms (false or real) in christianity.

I think it is fair to try and categorize this specific branch of Christianity. Some term has to be given to it to set it apart from other forms. The followers of Branham would have no problem calling other Catholics, or Baptists. They don't simply call them all Christians, they note the difference.


 * See my comment in the immediately preceding section.  Taxee (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A section on the division in Branhamism
This article would benefit, i believe, on a section on the major devision of branham's followers after his death. A very large portion of branham's 'adherents' will claim that he is christ, god, a prophet greater than christ, etc, and that he will raise from the dead. And several thousand gather around his grave every easter to see if he will raise from the dead. Other are strictly against this, saying he is dead and gone and they should move on. You can clearly pick this up from the websites of the different sides and would not be hard to document. Cool10191 (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Your view that this segment encompasses a "very large portion of branham's 'adherents'" is not based on fact. While it is true that such beliefs do exist, these people are a small minority of those that believe Wiliiam Branham was a prophet.  The primary reason for this can be found in The Bruised Serpent message where William Branham clearly states that all who believe such are in error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taxee (talk • contribs) 19:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me quantify. 5-10% of branham followers believe this. This is a rough guess from my knowledge of them. Definantly not a majority, but very much worth mentioning. I am aware of Branham's teachings against people claiming he was anything other than a man, but isn't the fact he openly had to denounce it proof enough that it was somewhat widespread? And besides, branham almost always said he was not a prophet, but yet most of his followers beleive that. I could list several assemblies that beleive Branham is God or some derivative thereof, their members are definantly in the thousands. I only live a few miles from where he is buried. Easter is coming, I can go take a picture to prove it, there will be no less than one thousand people there waiting for him to raise from the dead... One other thing. So maybe this is not the spot to make an article on these types, but even you admit they exist, you just perhaps disagree on the number of them. Maybe they should have article just for them? And a third item. I would argue that this idolizing of Branham is done in varying degree throughout the majority of his followers. While only some say he is god, a much larger portion (more like 25-35%) believe he will raise from the dead (christ like) to complete the 'Third Pull'. Cool10191 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think these points are worth mentioning in this article. I really think that noting the differences among his followers would be useful. Branhamism is definitely not monolithic. 1. Some of Branham's followers believe he will raise from the dead and 'finish' his ministry. This could include a paragraph on the '3rd pull' 2. Some (although not a majority) believe Branham is in some way a God or Christ. 3. The broad difference among his followers to his specific importance. On one side you have those that call him God, on the opposite side there are those who rarely mention him anymore but hold his doctrines, and in the middle those who only listen to replays of his sermons believing that no one else has a new revelation.


 * While there may be 5-10% who think he was God, in the area which you live (and these are based on your own opinion and not anything that is verifiable), those numbers are way too high on a global basis. While I have heard that such beliefs exist, I have never met anyone who espouses them.  I have met a few people that believe that Wm. Branham will return to complete some supposed unfinished work but again I am not aware of anyone of this persuasion that live in our area.  I would expect that you would find a few in the Jeffersonville area and some in Arizona.  However, outside of these areas, there would likely not be numbers of any consequence.


 * If you were to look at groups that you might identify, I would differentiate those that follow William Branham and those that revere his son, Joseph Branham, as a prophet. You might want to set up a separate article under that heading but that should not be a part of this article.  I expect that all of the people that you are referring to likely fall within his followers.   Taxee (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I do agree with you that those who believe branham is god also generally believe that Joseph is a prophet (though some disagree as to just what prophet means when referring to him). But the people who believe branham is god are more than in just my area, in fact there are more in Canada and in Nigeria that I know of than in the Jeffersonville. And they would say that they are the true branham followers and the others are false. I have been to many countries where branham's followers are and these types are almost everywhere. They are very reclusive though. As you may know it was in Canada where branham himself first encountered them. I first encountered them in Canada, and not in my own area - these types have been pretty well driven out of the major branham churches in this area (faith assembly church and the branham tabernacle). They told of of the groups in Jeffersonville, and from there I discovered very many more groups. As for verifiability in numbers as a precentage of the entirety of Branham's followers, I do agree that might be hard to document. But it can definantly be verified that they do exists in the numbers of several thousands. Check back here around easter and I will upload a picture for you of the THOUSANDS around his grave waiting for him to raise from the dead.. References are in documents by major ministers in all sects 'the message' like Perry Green, Junior Jackson, etc. You could ask Billy Paul how many there are that believe this. I cannot think of any I know of in BC there is a group in Portage La Praire and another just north of Edmonston Alberta, would you like directions? There are also two groups in NB, one in Newfoundland, 2 in quebec (but i suspect more) and 3 in ontario. These groups total about 800 members. These are just in Canada. There is a group in Washington State also that you might be aware of. They are the main reason his followers came to be called Branhamites.. :S They are the primary ones who got the movement labeled a cult. It was not just Branham himself who caused his followers to be viewed this way, it was the actions of a group of his followers who BEFORE and AFTER his death went around telling people he was God, this just fanned the flames of people thinking he was a nut. They were even at his funeral, the very man who delivered his eulogy talked about him raising from the dead to finish the third pull and the 'tent ministry'. There are major divisions among his followers, and all claim to be the real thing. Junior jackson has 12-15 thousand followers, there are many who cling to Peary Green, there are several thousand others who say he is god, then there is also those who still with the family of branham who are probably the largest group. These are just four categories and there are definate, distinct differences among them. They all claim to be a continuation of branham's teachings. Should these differences not be noted at all on this article? Are they not all a part of Branhamism?Cool10191 (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Silence? No response to this. I am not trying to use these divisions among his followers to cast branham in a negative light. He is a very intriguing and interesting person with a unique calling and life not seen since he died. But i do beleive for the purposes of accuracy though that the differences among his followers should at the very least be noted on the page that is describing their beliefs. I know his followers to not like to note the many and deep divisions, but they do exist. I also know that his followers are largely the writer and editors of this article and if i put anything on here that is negative it will be quickly removed. So let me ask, is there anyone in the branham movement that can show me that there are more than 30 groups of branham followers that believe exactly the same things? Everyone believe branham was a prohpet, but other than that, from one fringe to the other there is very little that is the same. And that can most definatly be documented.Cool10191 (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am going to document this a little better for you. Read this excerpt from http://www.biblebelievers.org/wbmtos.htm, bro branhams memorial service. And note the title - God in the flesh.


 * Some are going to think I am sacreligious or off doctrinally (and it doesn't really matter), but God came again in human flesh and said, "Apparently I must show them again. I must remind them again. They must see one more time. Once again they must know what God is like." And He stepped down and sent a little man, a prophet, but more than a prophet this time, A Jesus-man this time! (and another excerpt here) Then on the other hand, those that didn't believe it was a devil, all started praying to get the same sign. I couldn't understand that, either. It never occurred to me, sitting there, to look on and desire that sign. That was none of my business. That was God's gift to a generation. It never occurred to me that was what I had to have. But everything he did, the discerning of the people's thoughts and of their deeds, demonstrated to me Jesus in action. I SAW JESUS THAT NIGHT IN A HUMAN FORM THAT THEY CALLED WILLIAM BRANHAM!


 * now this was at his funeral, in front of hundreds(probably thousands) of his followers, and no one said a word about it, in fact the only person who i know to have denounced those things is junior jackson many years later, he didn't even disagree then. just what is that guy saying? Now if no one wants to comment further on this I am going to go ahead and add these things into this article.Cool10191 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, Cool10191 , there are extremists in everything. Does anyone remember the group who believed that Martin Luther was Christ returned? Listen, there are whackos everywhere. I personally associate with many "Message Believers" and NONE of them are awaiting Rev. William Branham's resurrection here. He (Rev. Branham) NEVER once said or implied that he believed he'd rise here, like Christ. You are giving the impression that Islamism and 'Branhamism' are one and the same. Get sober, and don't ever slander the Rev. Branham's name in my sight ever again. Junior Jackson went off the deep end, as many Message Believers have expressed before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrwilliams net (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am a Message believer ... and I DO expect William Branham to rise from the dead ... I also expect my mother, and my brother, and all real Christians, to rise from the dead in the first resurrection. Unfortunately the last part is often omitted, and that's how Pearry Green got misquoted in the press at the time of William Branham's death.
 * Again this April, 100's, maybe 1000's, will visit Jeffersonville for the Easter meetings - while there, many people will visit WB's grave, and no doubt this will again be interpreted as Message believers going out to see if he rises from the dead or not!
 * BTW, I don't think JJ went "off the deep end" even though I do not see eye-to-eye with him on everything.
 * And T L Osborn speaking at WB's funeral did not say WB was Jesus Christ incarnate - he said we saw Jesus Christ demonstrated in the life and ministry of WB - hopefully others will see Jesus Christ demonstated in each of our lives too, although not with regard to the same supernatural signs. Rev107 (talk) 05:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

POV tag
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

POV
This article needs improvement to reflect a more scholarly analysis. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Virtually all of the article is based on secondary sources, with the bulk of the article being based on Doug Weaver's book, The Healer-Prophet: William Marrion Branham (Mercer University Press). This book is considered a "reliable source" in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on No Original Research.


 * If you don't think that the article reflects a NPOV, how would you suggest that the article be improved?  Taxee (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think Weaver is a fine source, but as you pointed out the article relies on that source for almost all content. "at a minimum, revered by Message believers" doesn't seem encyclopedic. While the article does a very good job of explaining what Branhamism is it provides little context. I think the reception section could be expanded significantly. I haven't found a lot of references. I am not strongly opposed to the removal of the tag. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Other than Weaver, there is not a lot of good secondary source material on the followers of Branham. One has to use the sources that are available and Weaver has done a good job of describing the history of the movement up to the date of the publication of his book.  The real problem is that the movement is quite small in North America and, thus, has not attracted much attention from the academic world.   Taxee (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No objection to removal of tags. The article does a good job describing the subject, if it uses the sources available not much more to be done. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal
According to No original research, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

Other than Doug Weaver's book, The Healer-Prophet: William Marrion Branham (Mercer University Press) which is considered a "reliable source" in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on No Original Research, there is not a lot of good secondary source material on the followers of Branham.

However, that does not mean that primary material can be used to do original research or create an article that has a biased POV.

The best outcome would be to merge this article with the article on the movement's founder, William M. Branham. Taxee (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The article was merged into William M. Branham (relevant contents were moved into that article) after there was no discussion on the issue for over a month. Taxee (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)