User talk:Charles Edward/William Branham draft

Major Revision
I completed a through fact checking of the article as I have not previously been involved with it. From this check stems most issues I found. Here is a full summary of my changes. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk

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.) &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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 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.
 *  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.
 * 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.

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.