Jump to content

Talk:Latter Rain (post–World War II movement)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Adding your text to an older thread of discussion may be more appropriate than starting a new one

Subtly opinionated

[edit]

There is some good information presented here but a careful peruse of the article indicates a subtle opinion against the movement. It's not very blatant but there is a consistent focus on the negatives/controversy of the movement with half-hearted attempts at objectively defining the movement. The author seems to indicate an outsider knowledge of the movement with such statements as:

It is difficult to communicate the Latter Rain through reference to doctrine alone, because its most distinctive element is its spiritual atmosphere. Once one understands this basic point, it is easy to identify within the Pentecostal movement who has been impacted by the Latter Rain, and to what degree.

Easy to identify based on "spiritual atmosphere"? No more explanation is given of what this "spiritual atmosphere" entails. This is not an objective way to define the latter rain movement. The proceeding bullets list a few general tenets of the latter rain movement but are all the more controversial issues. I think someone who is in the movement who can stay objective should contribute to balance this article. --67.185.117.84 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what you will find with a very brief search for the "Latter Rain" on Google is that there are many more critics than members, and there is a lot of disinformation out there. This is one of those articles that will need constant effort to keep it from becoming biased either by the many critics or by some of the groups who don't want to be identified. What is most important that is communicated by this article, however is the difference between the latter rain revival, the movement and those that they influenced, because this is widely confused by the critics User:Theriddles

With reference to the above blockquote -- speaking as someone who came looking for information who is not a Christian, the concept is not sufficiently explained either in terms of Christian doctrine or in terms of "spiritual atmosphere". Other than the fact that this is some kind of "movement", there is no information given here that makes a great deal of sense, except to someone who already knows what this article is about. Frankly, that is not the intent of Wikipedia, as I understand it. Perhaps someone could make an attempt to communicate in simple English words the nature of what is being discussed here so that the concept could be understood by the average non-Christian reader (who, I may add, probably makes up considerably more than half the users and editors of Wikipedia). Mere lists of bible verses are not helpful -- lists of people who may or may not have been part of the movement are not helpful -- jargon is not helpful. If you truly want this concept to be understood, then someone should make an effort to explain it to the average reader. Otherwise, it's close to being cruft. Accounting4Taste 21:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how a "spiritual atmosphere" is an amorphous term which does not explain much especially to someone from a non-religious background. Thanks for that comment. I've reworked it. Theriddles 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No pastors in Pentecostal churches?

The last sentence under "Ecclesiology" is absurd on its face. Are there no pastors in Pentecostal churches? Every one that I've ever visited has a pastor, one of the fourfold (not fivefold as is commonly taught, but that's a different argument for another day, I suppose) offices of ministry: "Classical Pentecostals understood the five ministerial roles not as offices or authority designated to any particular person but as functions available to the entire Spirit baptized congregation subject to the leading of the Spirit." Mmlj4 (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

leaves out history

[edit]

I got onto this page trying to find out about the Latter Rain Movement because I was looking for background to Blind Willie Johnson's gospel song of the 1930s, "Latter Rain Gonna Fall On Me." It was clear to me that this page must be incorrect as it currently stands, since the Johnson song antedates the chronology of this page by over a decade. Subsequent research has taught me that the movement began in Pentecostalism around 1900. It would be good if someone more expert in this line of history than I am would work on this page.Buckdancer 20:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any changes are needed. The idea of a "Latter Rain" started at least as early as the Pentecostals (and that is mentioned here), but The "Latter Rain Movement" was a distinct movement as outlined in this article. 69.26.112.194 00:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes - August 10, 2007

[edit]

It is a common misconception that John Robert Stevens and the Living Word Fellowship were a part of Latter Rain or the Manifest Sons of God movement. Stevens said on numerous occasions (in at least 12 sermons given between the years of 1959 and 1982) that he felt that God showed him to never be a part of the Latter Rain movement. Jeremiah 03:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Stevens may have distanced himself later from the movement, but he is documented by Richard Riss, the authoritative historian of the movement as getting key influence there. Check out the Latter Rain book. I've added the citation to the references section. I did add a comment to reference the additional information you have provided, however. If you think you can make a more accurate formulation, go ahead, however please do not removed the substantiated material. Thanks. Theriddles 19:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section on MFI is vague

[edit]

Ministers Fellowship International (MFI) represents perhaps the most theologically solid group to directly emerge from the Latter Rain

What does that mean? It's extremely vague and sounds rather subjective. Does it mean that the theology is most "mainstream" or not controversial? Does it mean that it is objectively somehow more Biblically grounded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgiablue (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MFI ministers are internationally known by the books the most influencial leaders have written. Because of solid imput of scriptures and combining spiritual interpretation and obvious literal interpretation, it is widely reckonized. These people know the word, know what they are talking about and there in lies there reckonision. There are others as well who know the word excellently and teach it practically, which have a long time of influencial ministries, without being sectarian.

Of course this and every page in Wikipedia are opinionated. I hold the opinion that God created the world in 6 days, has been nurturing His Church since walking with Adam in Eden, and that He will soon restore Hs Creation to what He intended. Such are my presuppositions as a veteran minister of the Assemblies of God who found it necessary to resign in protest of the AoG' departure from it's own foundational Fundamentals of Faith, Constitution & Bylaws, and historic General Council Resolutions, in particular 1949's, wherein:

E. S. Williams, stated that Pre-trib Rapture represented correct eschatology and they rejected the Latter Rain practice of personal prophesy accompanied by the laying on of hands.

I knew Earnest S. Williams when I was a student at Central Bible College. He greeted each day and closed each evening on his knees until the passage of time prohibited such expression. It was regarding Earnest's care at Maranatha Village that I first clashed with the AoG heirarchy. It seems that one Attend was sufficient for a man of his esteem given budgetary constraints in the early 80's. What I witnessed in the ensuing years did not surprize me and the events were alarming. The spirit of Ecumenicism and Universalism were becoming entrenched in the Assemblies of God. An Apostacy, a great falling away from faith, is occurring in Classic Pentecostal circles.

Opal Reddin speaks of this falling away in her final video: In Defense of the Gospel - The Gospel Is At Stake When Error Enters In. [1]

Remember that this is my opinion and God does not care about what we think. His plan will be realized...even the fulfillment of 2 Thessalonians 2:8ff and the fall of Babylon the Great in a single day. Jesus will establish His own throne. Dominion Theology and it's purports will have nothing to do with that success. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainview (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should study the coming of the Lord in AD 70 as a judgement coming, the facts are overflowing from within scripture. For example how can Jesus say and comfort persequoted christians that he whould soon return, if he in reality stayed away for 2000 years. I think it is close to violation of the personal credibility of Jesus to think in such a way. Please realise that a man named in the bible like Clement of Rome wrote whole chapters indicating positivism like being taught in postmillennial cicles, although I realise clearly not all LR influenced people have adopted postmillennialism. Realise also that Babylon was often used as a codename for Rome, which was only built on seven hills, Babel clearly was not, for instance! Note as well that even in Revelation Jerusalem has been called Babylon. The city of Babylon had no influence in NT-times. Do not too easily put everything thousand or two thousand years further in history, most old testament prophecies do not do this either.

Added paragraph about Reconciliation movement

[edit]

There are some Latter Rain-inspired Charismatics who believe in the doctrine of Universal Reconciliation, the salvation of all through Christ. This is a significant school of thought, especially since this tradition is having a major influence on the Christian Universalist movement in general. Therefore, I added a paragraph in the Controversies section of the article which describes the Reconciliation movement that arose out of Latter Rain, including some references. Shiningdove (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

This article really lacks a succinct introduction which brings the reader up to speed. Someone please write one, thanks. Maikel (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article starts out like this:
For clarification in discussion of the Latter Rain a distinction should be made between:
  • The Latter Rain Revival (1948-1952)
  • The Latter Rain Movement (1952-1960s)
  • Those influenced by the Latter Rain.
And then never explains what the distinctions are that should be made, especially between the Latter Rain Revival and the Latter Rain Movement. Ltwin (talk) 19:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can perhaps do a little work on adding an "influenced by" section. I'll have to do a bit of research fist, but right off the top of my head New Apostolic Reformation comes to mind. Any other suggestions are welcome.

A contradiction?

"The Latter Rain Assemblies in South Africa" is singled out as predating and being unafilliated with the Latter Rain movement, yet the "Founders" section lists it: "Maria Fraser founded the Latter Rain Assemblies in South Africa (Blourokkies)". Mmlj4 (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking Citations

[edit]

The entire "beliefs" section is lacking citations. Additionally, most of the statements about figures linked to the movement are lacking citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.100.176.34 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is American-centric

[edit]

The article fails to consider that the Latter Rain movement is world wide, and started long before WWII.

-- 1948 is after WWII, no? Even if you go back to the PAOC bible college split in 1947 (http://www.spiritwatch.org/firelatter2.htm) that set the stage for the heresy, it's still after WWII. Or are you referring to something else? Mmlj4 (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to broaden it a bit, but either more needs to be added, or else different articles are needed for various countries, with a disambiguation page. SteveH (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FACTNET is not a reliable third-party source

[edit]

I believe that anything from FACTNET is not a reliable source. Material found on a discussion forum is a primary source and not written from a third-party perspective. Even just mentioning FACTNET within the article is a sign of original research. I strongly believe that citing FACTNET goes against these Wikipedia guidelines, which, in turn, goes against the guideline of verifiability. I would suggest removing all references to FACTNET and deleting any information sourced to FACTNET in order to make this article as trustworthy as possible. Jeremiah (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all references to FACTNET. You are right, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria. Ltwin (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move the article to a new title

[edit]

As has been mentioned before, there is a "Latter Rain Movement" which predates the movement described in this article by some 60 years. To avoid confusion, I'm proposing that this article be moved to New Order of the Latter Rain with "Latter Rain Movement" to become a disambiguation page to allow readers to jump to either the present article, an article describing the original movement (which I'm prepared to start), or the Pentecostalism article. I'm asking for comments here from interested editors prior to moving ahead. • Astynax talk 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it my freind, It is good to check for consensus but on an issue like this i advise you to act boldly because this need to be differentiated. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to ask for some clarity here. I'm aware that the "Latter Rain" motif has always been used by Pentecostals from the very beginning. Are you referring to the Pentecostal Movement as being older? If not, could you give me a short description on this other Latter Rain movement? Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "Latter Rain Movement" in existence prior to the subject of this current article began in the last decades of the 19th century in the southeastern U.S. In its early years, it had a restorationist character and sought to include all Christian denominations. It was later largely subsumed into the modern Pentecostal movement. Many references refer to this earlier movement explicitly as the "Latter Rain Movement". It seems the term "Latter Rain" is also used elsewhere in early Pentecostalism. And yet other sources use "Latter Rain Movement" to describe the movement out of Canada during the 1940s. Some disambiguation is needed. • Astynax talk 08:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with disambiguation. I just wanted some info about this older movement. Ltwin (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I hope the title is OK. Reconsidering, I chose Latter Rain (post-World War II movement) to keep the article appearing in the results when a reader types "Latter rain" into the search box. I think more people are likely to search on that term than "New Order". I should soon be able to finish a stub for the earlier movement, depending on how my day goes. • Astynax talk 18:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Latter Rain (post–World War II movement). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii?

[edit]

I ended up on this page after seeing a church called ‘True Jesus Mission Church of the Latter Rain’ in Honolulu and hoped to find information about how the movement ended up in Hawaii. Should this be included? 213.205.241.22 (talk) 06:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the church part of the "latter rain" movement as described in this article? I think you need more info on the ‘True Jesus Mission Church of the Latter Rain’ before you can draw that conclusion. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 15:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Latter_Rain_(post–World_War_II_movement)&oldid=1203506017"