Talk:The Message of the Hour
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 March 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Branhamism. |
References
[edit]Without references, this article is really just somebody's personal opinion. Even though one may have a thorough knowledge of the Message, and the various Message beliefs, this is not a basis to present as facts,things which are disputed. If the article is meant to reflect the variety of beliefs among Message followers, it still needs to be substantiated. Rev107 (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Totally in agreement, however there is no third party published information on "The Message of the Hour", only primary sources. The term itself is POV. Charles Edward 12:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- "The Message of the Hour" is defined in the first paragraph, and I think that would find consensus among most people. There are numerous websites that provide information - of course there are differences among them, but there is also majority agreement on many issues. One of these issues would be the "three comings of Jesus Christ" which at present is not accurately presented in the article. There are also several books such as "All Things are Possible" (D E Harrell); "The Healer-Prophet" (C D Weaver) and "Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements" which include references to doctrine.
I do not feel comfortable with the heading "Major Sects". According to Wikipedia the word sect in "its historical usage in Christendom ... has a pejorative connotation and refers to a movement committed to heretical beliefs"Rev107 (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- "The Message of the Hour" is defined in the first paragraph, and I think that would find consensus among most people. There are numerous websites that provide information - of course there are differences among them, but there is also majority agreement on many issues. One of these issues would be the "three comings of Jesus Christ" which at present is not accurately presented in the article. There are also several books such as "All Things are Possible" (D E Harrell); "The Healer-Prophet" (C D Weaver) and "Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements" which include references to doctrine.
- Those three books are really more on the life and ministry of Branham and it's impact on the wider charismatic movement, and not very detailed or informative about his many different beliefs, which would be the topic of of this article, thats what I mean by no publisher third party sources. The only informative sources on the doctrines themselves are publisher by the followers. The Pentecostla dictionary does give a little information on doctrines, but nothing that would in anyway be considers comprehensive or even broad. - In reference to the title, Certainly the followers would refer to his teachings as "the message of the hour", but would anyone else? That is why I say the title is POV. What is the message of the house to one group of christians, may be completely different to the message of the house to another group. And as for "Sects", that can be changed. What term do you propose we use? Maybe "divisions"? Charles Edward 12:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- What people choose to call themselves is accepted as just that - a name (eg, Church of Christ). There is nothing POV about the names people use. That it is used as a name, is a fact.
If, as you seem to be suggesting, there are no reliable sources, why should someone else not just rewrite the whole article according to his or her impressions?
It seems to me the value of a source depends upon the context. The best source for what a group believes must be the group itself. Of course, care has to be taken as to how this is expressed so that beliefs are expressed as beliefs, and not as absolute truth. Rev107 (talk) 10:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- What people choose to call themselves is accepted as just that - a name (eg, Church of Christ). There is nothing POV about the names people use. That it is used as a name, is a fact.
- You are right, the best information comes from the source itself. But, on wikipedia, primary sources can only be used to establish facts and events, and with caution. Secondary sources are required for anything more than that - third party published sources on this topic, which are few to none. So if all we have, by and large, to work with is primary sources we have to paint with a broad brush. And as far as someone rewriting to their impression of the group, really, there is nothing to keep them from doing it because there is nothing publisher to counter most of what they would, but likewise there would be nothing published to agree with what they say.
Again, in reference to the name, I am not advocating renaming the article because, quite simply, what else could it be called? There is no other suitable name - this is a very unusual group of Christians. But in working in general on wikipidia articles, I think that most editors would find the name to be POV. Is there a published, third party source, which refers to these teachings as "the message of the hour"? A non POV term might be, the "Doctrines of William Branham" or "Doctrines of the Followers of William Branham". It is just so hard to put any classification because they are non-organized and pretty much nameless, as in there is no "Official" name. Well I digress, feel free to edit anything you think is out of place. You do a very good job on the William Branham article. I rewrote this some time back mainly to get the "Relgious Tract" tone out of it, and to make it more informative. I gathered the info mainly from biblebeleivers.org, but I could have misread or misunderstood parts. Charles Edward 13:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are right, the best information comes from the source itself. But, on wikipedia, primary sources can only be used to establish facts and events, and with caution. Secondary sources are required for anything more than that - third party published sources on this topic, which are few to none. So if all we have, by and large, to work with is primary sources we have to paint with a broad brush. And as far as someone rewriting to their impression of the group, really, there is nothing to keep them from doing it because there is nothing publisher to counter most of what they would, but likewise there would be nothing published to agree with what they say.
- Thanks, Charles, for the go-ahead, and for your help in presentation. I raised a topic Source for a religious group's beliefs on the Wikipedia Reliable Sources Noticeboard that you might find interesting. Ken Rev107 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
the message of the hour
[edit]should not be merged with branhamism as the later gives a deliberate bias to what branham said and deliberate ignore some of the things he said which agrees perfectly with scriptures but denoucces the false dogmas that denominational churches believe and cherish( for instance, myself being a stonch presbeterian find the teachings of this person very illuminating)
- I agree. Branhamism is delivered as a outside look at the branham movement as a group it's adherents. This article is more about the doctrines. They should remain separateCool10191 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
re-write
[edit]Hey, I am done a big re-write on the article. Mostly grammatical. I am making it more readable. I have made some changes though. Notably I have changed alot of "Branham Taught"s to "The Message Followers Believe". There is already an article for William Branham. There is an article for an abstract, outside view of his followers branhamism, and this I think is meant to be the inside view of the movement and about his followers and their beliefs. It was reading alot like a religious tract, but i think my re-write has taken alot of that tone out of it. The article also needs alot of references, of course, as branham's followers all know there is no shortage of that. I know how much many of them love to quote Branham, so maybe you point to the sermons for some of the views. Also as I try to rework the article as a whole these are going to be my guidelines, (and you can destroy it or whatever when i am done) 1. i am going to try and write this so someone outside of the message can read it and comprehend, alot of these doctrines are foreign to most people. 2. I admit that branham was the defining man in the movement, but simply quoting him does not prove that other believe it.. I need to link to sources of others in the movement to show how they interpret branham. a bunch of quotes do not make a good article, I intend to summarize and then reference branham. 3. I am not going to write this as though all followers of the message beleive exactly the same thing. some things vary throughout the movement, i am going to be truthful where needed. 4.this article is going to be about The Message of The Hour: to me that title says that is about the doctrines and maybe something about it's adherents.
i am going to start working on this now so, if you have any input please do so.Cool10191 (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Ok the largest part of the re-write is done. Alot of it is not referenced. That is the next thing I am going to work on. Now I know it won't be long and someone is going to come and try to add things back that I have removed. But please read this first! Please do not clutter this article up with quotes and 20 points for each doctrine, etc. If i have put the beliefs wrong, then please just summarize what is correct, do not preach a sermon. In one or two paragraphs SUMMARIZE the doctrine and then reference the Branham sermon or whatever else. Then if the reader is interested in why it is believed they can follow the reference and read the sermon. Branham is kinda hard to follow in some of his quotes, so please understand, just summarize what he is saying in good grammar and reference him. And remember this article is not about what branham said, it is about what THE MESSAGE is, what his followers interpret it to mean. It is about what they believe in their own words.. So if you are tellign someone outside you are not going to tell them what branham believed, you are going to tell them what you believe. I think that is the best way to keep this article readable.Cool10191 (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Article Tone
[edit]There are no specifics on this page to say what is not liked about the tone of the article. Although I can guess. I am removing the tag. When the administrator, or wikipolice, who added the tag has time, please add the tag back with the reason and I will work to correct it. ThanksCool10191 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)