Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 2

Kelly A. Siebecke: edits

Most of the changes are insignificant but there are two I disagree with: 1. There were/are many Christians(Pentecostals particularly) who believe William Branham was a prophet, even though they disagree with some of his teachings and do not regard themselves as "followers" (among these were Gordon Lindsay, T L Osborn, Kenneth Hagin).

2. You have deleted a comment about the influence William Branham had on evangelists at that time. I will do a little research and include a comment, with references, that indicates the extent of that influence. Rev107 01:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

---

And here it is:

"As the pacesetter of the healing revival, Branham was the primary source of inspiration in the development of other healing ministries. He inspired hundreds of ministers to enter the healing ministry and a multitude of evangelists paid tribute to him for the impact he had upon their work. As early as 1950, over 1,000 healing evangelists gathered at a Voice of Healing [the name of Branham’s magazine] convention to acknowledge the profound influence of Branham on the healing movement" <Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), p. 372.

The sentence you deleted: His ministry had effects felt around the world, and it fostered a number of other ministers who became internationally known.

Those who became internationally known and who paid tribute to William Branham included T L Osborn, Tommy Hicks, and probably Oral Roberts (according to Harrell, p42)

Rev107 07:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

References

I have been attempting to add references to the article on William Branham. It is my first foray into Wikipedia, so my apologies to those who may have been notified of numerous changes - they are all to do with providing references, as well as a few minor alterations to spelling, grammar, and style. I have not attempted to alter the content. Rev107 01:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC) ____________________________________________________________________

Well, I think I might have finally finished adding references ... sorry about being so long and messy about it. If you've got any comments or suggestions, please contact me. I added a few extra comments and quotes, but I do not think I have altered the points anyone else has made, even though I did make a few changes here and there for the sake of clarity or grammar ... can't help it ... I was a school teacher most of my life!!! God bless. Rev107 07:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

POV

I tagged this article as POV because much of it simply repeats Branham's own claims uncritically. David L Rattigan 10:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Branham was most definatly not a mason.

Flagged NPOV again, someone is unflagging, sigh. Worst offender: "The true followers of William Branham distance themselves ..."

This article is extremely biased against William Branham - this was quoted from the article before I edited it:

"Branham felt that women were the root of all evil"

This could not be further from the truth! Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to say such a lie as this? Pardon me for getting excited, but we have no idea how many people now think of Brother Branham as an evil, imbecillic man because of this unfounded writing. Whoever said that should have a severe warning. NOWHERE did Brother Branham say this. And I have looked. All he said was that they have an evil spirit on them when he was talking about immoral clothing and when casting out demons at a prayer line. Talk about a non-neutral point of view! SplinterCell37 13:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Current Followers and Main Belief

This section doesn't exactly make sense about what is being said. Some may believe that but that isn't the view shared by all Message Believers. This seriously needs a better NPOV. 67.142.130.23 19:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC) JCP

• This section is evidently related to a particular faction and not really applicable here and should probably be put as a separate entry or deleted.
  • I agree. Strawberry Island 04:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I have had a look at this section, and also find it somewhat unusual - A lot (maybe all?) the followers believe this interpretation of scripture, but to call it the main belief?? I have added a preface to this section. See what you think. Maybe we should remove this section altogether. Malachi456 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any message to the contrary, I have removed this section. Malachi456 10:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• • It should be a seperate entry and removed from this page It has a very highly charged POV.

Prophecy or not. UPDATED WITH PROOF

I found

"that by 1977 all denominations would be consumed by the World Council of Churches under the control   
of the Roman Catholics, that the rapture would take place, and that the world would be destroyed."  
(Burgess and McGee, Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements, 96)

However this is quite a jump from what the article pages says! It's also the only _source_ I could find. The transcripts of (at least some of) his sermons are online, the one I found (http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=1074) mentions WCC in a negative biblical context but that's about it (although I didn't read the whole thing).

I think we need a more authoratiative reference to say that he made the statemnt, and that he claimed it was divinly inspired prophecy.

I have removed this text until we have an authority.

• • I agree, as far as I can see Branham never made such a statement as prophecy Malachi456 03:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

At least one of his prophecies - that all Christian denominations would be controlled by the 
World Council of Churches by 1977 - 
[[Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy has come to fruition.

Rich Farmbrough 19:15, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Brother Branham said is several documented places that he "predicted" this, not prophesied. He specifically made that distinction. 8 Times between 1960 and 1961 he spoke about this and clarified it as a personal prediction.

--Hesaias 02:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

HERE IS SOME PROOF!

Here are some actual quotes taken from transcripts of Brother Branham's messages, in an Infobase file provided by Voice of God Recordings.

[This is while he was reading from a piece of paper, on which he had written the vision]

CONDEMNATION.BY.REPRESENTATION_  JEFF.IN  V-2 N-13  SUNDAY_  60-1113
Then I seen the United States as one smoldering, burnt-over place. It will be near the end. 
(Then I've got in parenthesis: "I predict that this will take place." Now, remember, the Lord ne...  
That's what the Lord showed, but "I predict this will take place before 1977.")

For those who can't quite understand his English: he is saying that the Lord didn't show him the world would end by 1977, but that was just his prediction, as a man, not the word of God.

I have another quote:

CONFERENCE_  SHREVEPORT.LA  FRIDAY_  60-1125
[E-7] Then I turned to look and I seen the United States was a smoldering something had burned it up.
And down beneath there I said, not in the trance, but, "I predict..." (remember this, I guess this 
is taped too), "I predict that these things will take place between now, 1933 and 1977."

I'd like to draw your attention to "not in the trance, but, I predict". For the spiritually illiterate, this means that it wasn't the voice of God that was predicting it to be 1977, it was only William Branham - the man, NOT the vision.

Need some more quotes?

EPHESIAN.CHURCH.AGE_  JEFF.IN  ROJC 131-183  MONDAY_  60-1205
...and I don't know when it'll end, but I predict it'll be done by 1977. I predict, not the 
Lord told me, but I predict it according to a vision that was showed me some years ago, that five of 
those things has (out of the seven)--has already taken place about...

LAODICEAN.CHURCH.AGE  -  CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.9
THE LAODICEAN AGE
The Laodicean Age began around the turn of the Twentieth Century, perhaps 1906. How long will it 
last? As a servant of God who has had multitudes of visions, of which NONE has ever failed, let me 
predict (I did not say prophesy, but predict) that this age will end around 1977.

LAODICEAN.CHURCH.AGE  -  CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.9
Based on these seven visions, along with the rapid changes which have swept the world in the last 
fifty years, I PREDICT (I do not prophesy) that these visions will have all come to pass by 1977.

LAODICEAN.CHURCH.AGE_  JEFF.IN  ROJC 493-550  SUNDAY_  60-1211E
43    We believe that the Laodicean church started in A.D. 1906. I predict... Now, remember, 
"predict," especially you listening at the tape. I don't say it will be, but predict that it will 
end by 1977, that the church will go completely into apostasy, and she'll be ousted out of the mouth 
of God. And the second coming, or the rapture of Christ, might come anytime. Now, I could miss that 
a year; I can miss it twenty years, I could miss it a hundred years. I don't know where. But I just 
predict that according to a vision He showed me, and taking the time, the way it's progressing, I 
say it'll be sometime between '33 and '77. At--at least, this great nation is going to strike a war 
that's going to blow it to bits. See? Now, that's pretty close; it's awful close. And I could be 
wrong; I'm predicting.

Now, remember that Brother William Branham HAD to be so adamant about the fact that it was just a prediction and not a prophesy, in order to avoid confusion which has already manifested here. As such, he cannot be accused as a false prophet like the article currently does. Unless someone can provide me with opposing evidence, I'm going to edit the article accordingly. If I make a mistake, please correct it.

SplinterCell37 12:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted Material?

http://www.bibleway.org/wmb/ is a page I found where the text appears very similar (almost verbatim) to the original article. We may have clean the article up a lot more fully One Salient Oversight 04:47, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Where to find information

You can find information about William Branham at The Voice of God Recordings. They are involved in the translation and distribution of his sermons and books (free of charge). On the website you can search all 1,179 of his known recorded sermons transcribed directly from the tapes. Voice of God Recordings is run by William Branham's sons Joseph and Billy Paul Branham.

I should mention Voice of God Recordings is a nonprofit organization, however there is a charge of $1.00 per book and $4.00 per tape for the people in the US and Canada. They use this money along with other contributions to distribute William Branham's message in book, tape, mp3, and DVD format to the rest of the world free of charge.

William Branham’s entire collection of sermons is on the Internet in a searchable InfoBase at the branham.org web site under “Message Search.”

Newspaper reference

The following was deleted but should be placed back in the article if it can be verified:

The Durban Sunday Times showed the picture of 16-year-old Ernest Blom, who had been crippled for 12 years, who raised up and walked with no difficulty.

This reference to a newspaper article is apparently from the November 11, 1951 issue of the Durban Sunday Tribune.

Danpeanuts, can you please provide the URL of the online archive source so that I can verify the report by reading what the newspaper actually reported?

Thanks! Darlig Gitarist (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, I don't know how to get URL's of the Durban Sunday Times. Julius Stadsklev put pictures of the entire article in his book "A Prophet Visits South Africa" on page 76, if you would like to read it.

Also, since no other Wikipedia Christian leader has a biography section and this one is clearly slanted to tell people what to think, I'm deleting it as suggested in the above article, which I repeat below: ```Danpeanuts

Biography

• The introduction to this section is needlessly cryptic and would likely cause the reader to doubt the reliability of the information he is about to read. That should not happen. The questions regarding reliability could probably be reduced to a single sentence in the lead. Whenever potentially dubious information is mentioned in the article, it should come with an appropriate disclaimer. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• I personally recommend getting rid of the "Biography" header and making full sections out of the things which are now-subjections. This is partially because the "Public ministry" section is very long and should itself probably be divided into sub-sections. Display name 99 (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs)

Stadsklev book is a primary source which precludes it from any weight in the article. There are also questions that have been raised about its reliability as there are reported factual inaccuracies in it. With respect to documentation of miracles and people being resurrected from the dead, please read WP:EXTRAORDINARY to understand my concerns. If you are unable to reference the actual newspaper article such that it can be verified, then it should not be included.

I indented your comments above (which you should learn how to do as well as how to sign your comments if you are going to be active in Wikipedia). Darlig Gitarist (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, Why do you keep removing the documented newspaper articles that I have put in? Wikipedia calls this "warring" and will block one or both of us if this continues. Weaver has put in his own opinions rather than fact in more than one place. His book shouldn't be used at all. If you want to put in negative comments, why not list them on the bottom of the article on Branham in a separate place and let those who want to know about the man stand alone for those who want to know about the ministry. You realize that no one has ever done the same things that Jesus did until Branham came on the scene. 184.63.76.237 (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2017 (UTC)22 July 2012

For an example, please look at Kenneth Copeland's wikipedia site. It has the official information first and then controversies afterwards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

In response to 184.63.76.237, Weaver is a secondary source. You don't appear to understand the difference between primary and secondary source material (although this has been made clear above). Please take the time to understand this issue. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. The only way you can show your edit is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research; see below. In general, the most reliable sources are, peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses and university-level textbooks. Weaver's book is published by a university press and so is considered reliable (even if you don't like his conclusions).

I would refer you to the following articles on Wikipedia - WP:NOR and WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

One must also pay attention to the Wkipedia policy that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. For example, you would like the article to say that a newspaper stated that someone was raised from the dead. The policy on exceptional claims states that one must use extra caution when challenged claims are supported purely by primary or self-published sources. That is the case here. Weaver and Harrell deal with this issue objectively, which is the proper treatment.

Danpeanuts, have you taken the time to understand these issues? You refer to the Kenneth Copeland article which I have read. You will note that there are no claims about people being healed even though he and his followers would make these claims. Also, he is still alive which makes his biography a bit more complicated. The issues are different when you are dealing with a person who is still alive. A better article to look at is that of Oral Roberts. You will find no specifics of anyone being healed, although his ministry is comparable to Branham's in the view of Harrell.

I want the article of Branham to be high quality and I am prepared to work with you to get it that way BUT I and others on Wikipedia will revert any edits that violate the policies of Wikipedia and most of your edits, in the view of myself and others, have violated that policy. You will accomplish much more by working together with those of us that do try to uphold Wikipedia's policy and that will involve coming to an agreement here on the talk page prior to making the edits on issues that can be controversial. The question is whether you want to work together?

Look at my last edit which was to delete an obviously derogatory comment about Branham. I want the article to be balanced and neutral but that does not mean that the article should contain unverified material on exceptional claims or info based on primary source material.Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, It looks like we do need to decide what to write before we write it. To be an accurate account, the miracles should be included. I would like to put the newspaper articles back in, but if you wish to leave one or more out let me know. I notice that T. L. Osborne's Wikipedia article was mostly all positive. Harrell gives a good un-biased report, while Weaver gives a very biased report and even adds lies and his own opinions (Like where he said the picture of a Halo was an obviously scratched negative--even though an expert who examined it said the light struck the negative (Probably because he is Baptist and the many miracles and God speaking directly through a man offended him). There are numerous testimonies on YouTube that back up the accuracy of the discernment. I have even spoken to some of them myself. On page 38 of Harrell's book he also admits that the discernment appeared to be 100% accurate. What do you suggest that gives a balanced report? Danpeanuts (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)Dan Holt, 23 July 2017

A couple of questions:

1. Danpeanuts, have you read the Weaver book? If so, could you please provide me the page on which he states that the negative was obviously scratched? I actually don't think you have read the book because I have searched it and can't find the passage you are referring to. Weaver is actually very unbiased. But he includes the negatives and the positives as any balanced analysis by a researcher would be expected to be. If you haven't read Weaver's book, you can't comment on it with any sense of credibility.

2. How many people are indicated to be healed in the Osborn article? Answer: Zero. You still have not read the articles I referenced and, therefore, I don't think you understand what Wikipedia is about. There are arbitration routes that I will pursue if you will not abide by Wikipedia's policies. I don't think you will be happy with the outcome.

3. Branham was much more controversial than Osborn and both Harrell and Weaver talk about it. Are you aware that Harrell wrote the preface to Weaver's book? They are both university professors. The issues they raise set the weight of the article.

4. Do you understand WP:NOR and WP:EXCEPTIONAL? Can you please explain to me the difference between primary source and secondary source material and why Wikipedia relies on secondary sources? If you can't, then there is not point in discussing anything.

I am happy to try to reach an agreement on what should be included by discussing it on the talk page. That is what is supposed to happen. But if you violate Wikipedia policy, then I am not the only one that will revert your edits. Go look at your edits that were previously reverted. I certainly did not do all of them. If you can't come to an understanding of Wikipedia policy, then you will constantly see your edits reverted. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, I really didn't want to buy Weaver's book. I have Harrell's 1975 book. I deleted Weaver's statement about the scratched negative about 2 edits back. If it's possible to retrieve it, you can read it for yourself. To me, it seems that the books like "Prophet Visits South Africa" is a secondary source because it was written by an eye-witness who was a second person. I know I would have more confidence in the Bible written by actual witnesses than by someone else--especially someone who didn't believe. In a court of law they also only want eye-witnesses. If the only articles allowed are people who weren't there, then I would favor Harrell's book. The only thing is that not only the negative thoughts should be in Wikipedia, but also the positive ones. Here's a statement from Wikipedia's WP:NOR: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. (This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.)"

Here's a few examples: 1. Arrangements were made to have the Halo photo examined. It should say that it was examined by an expert and found to be authentic. 2. An unnamed minister in Saskatchewan, Canada stated that many pronounced as healed, later died, etc. For one thing, all will die, also, that's why I wanted to put some of the newspaper articles in to balance the subject so it wouldn't look like all of those prayed for died and that it wasn't fake. 3. Kenneth Hagin prophesied that Branham would die for his disobedience. Why was Hagin even mentioned? His own 1997 prophecy of St. Louis failed to come to pass. 4. Why were only the bad people influenced by Branham mentioned (Jim Jones, Schaifer), and not the successful ones (T.L. Osborn, Jack Coe, Oral Roberts, etc.)?

Danpeanuts, it's fine if you edited out the comment on Weaver but that does not negate the fact that you were posting things that were not true. Do you know what that does to your credibility? I have done a lot of research on Branham and own all of the books in both the primary and secondary source list. There are errors in Stadsklev's book. Are you aware of them?

There was a very balanced paragraph on the Houston photo at one time but someone messed it with the fallacy that Weaver said the negative was scratched and in edit battle to ensure the statement was truthful, the entire paragraph was deleted.

I want the statements to be balanced and the article to be neutral but that will require the negative to come out as well as the positive. If you are not prepared to have the article look at Branham as the academic community views him, then you don't understand what Wikipedia is about. It is not an apologetic for Branham. It looks at him from a neutral perspective, and that includes all of his problems. Weaver talks about Hagin and Lindsay and their interaction of the Pentecostal community with Branham.

You want to quote newspaper articles but you cannot even verify them. How do I know they are not like your Weaver research on the scratched negative? Do you understand why I (and many Wikipedia editors) will have a problem with sources that cannot be verified? Did you even read the article on "Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources"?

I am going to spend some time next week going through the article in detail and trying to answer all of the reviewers comments and, while I am doing that, will relook at Weaver's book and ensure that we do include his positive comments. If I post anything you don't like, we can discuss it here. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, I am not aware of any errors in Stadsklev's book, nor am I aware of anything I posted that was not true. I do know that there are a few people who were raised in the faith who have departed and are doing all in their power to discredit Branham. As far as I know he is probably one of the few who preached true bible holiness. You may have noticed that even in the church you attend, the women are wearing immodest clothing, men's clothing, cutting their hair and many things that they didn't do in the past. Men tell off-color jokes, use profanity, etc. Not all, but some; and the pastor is afraid to say anything about it. Perhaps where you attend is an exception, but there is a great falling away from what the church fathers taught. We needed someone to restore all things (Matt. 17:11). Would you tell me of an important error in Stadsklev's book? Also, why do you feel that you are the only person who can write about Branham and that you have a perfect understanding--even though you never knew the man or any of his family or people who witnessed the discernment and miracles?184.63.76.237 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)24 July 2017

Darlig, I notice that nothing has changed. Why do you want to completely control this site? You and Weaver continue to promote your own views and leave important facts out. This is like CNN and the Clilntons giving a report on Donald Trump. I have found other newspaper articles on the web telling of the many miracles that were done in the Branham campaigns and they need to be told. If you continue your grip on this site, I'm going to a third party. Let me repost the statements above:

I am requesting this also184.63.76.237 (talk) 12:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)25 July 2017

Since I'm on Social Security, I don't feel able to pay the price to get the original news articles, so would at this time like to remove Weaver's opinion about Branham making up a story about the light and voice that came when he was baptizing. His opinion should not outweigh what Branham said: "Given the lack of corroborating evidence for this supposed supernatural event, Weaver’s opinion is that it is possible that Branham later embellished the incident by 'remembering' the forerunner message when he was achieving success in the healing revival.".

Weaver looked at the evidence. That's what researchers and academics do and from that they form opinions based on the evidence. Wikipedia does not allow original research. But opinions of academics carry weight on Wikipedia. That's the way Wikipedia works. Again, have you read the Wikipedia articles I referenced?

I have actually looked for corroborating evidence which should be easy to find given that Branham said that it was all over the newspapers across North America. There is only one newspaper report and it only mentions that 14 people were converted, nothing else. If you could find a newspaper report that was verifiable, I would support referencing that in the article.Darlig Gitarist (talk) 14:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, There doesn't seem to be any place where you can obtain a list of all newspaper articles. The Newspaper Archive has been kind enough to let me have a free trial, but I see that they only have a few newspapers that they have copies of. Lee Vayle said that he saw a small article about the light and the voice that said "As John the Baptist was sent..." in a Canadian newspaper. That's what got him interested in Branham in the first place.

Thanks for putting Branham's picture back on the site with the halo or logos over his head. I have some newspaper articles of a couple of healing testimonies, including the page numbers of the newspapers and the names that I would like to put back in after the nay-sayers. Also, I would like to put back the article from the Durban Natal Mercury. A photo of the article appears in Stadsklev's book, unless you can prove that he is a liar and made a fake photo. I will try to get something from the newspaper too, but need to know exactly what you need to see and then your promise to leave it alone. Most newspapers don't want to write about the works of God, so only a few will do it. There are hundreds of witnesses of these miracles. I've heard many of them personally.

I didn't put Branham's picture back on the site. It was never on the site.

The newspaper articles have to be verifiable, i.e. someone other than you has to be able to examine the articles to ensure that what you are posting is factual. Stadsklev's book is not a valid source as it has been proved to have serious errors in it. Please compare Stadsklev's story on pp. 43-44 from "A Prophet Visits South Africa" with the story as described on page 6 of the Nov. 1954 Voice of Healing magazine. You still don't seem to understand the phrase "Exceptional Claims Require Exceptional Sources". This is Wikipedia policy and, as a result, any edit that violates that policy will be reverted by Wikipedians that understand the policy.

I would suggest this as a compromise. Please take whatever it is that you are going to use as proof for divine healing in the Branham article and insert it as an edit in the article on Faith healing. If it is not removed from that article by someone other than myself, then I will allow it to remain on this page. But it must use the same wording. That will remove it solely from the discussion here to something more general. But as and when it is removed from that article, it will be removed from this article. Agreed? Darlig Gitarist (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, Did you block me from using Wikipedia? I have talked to Senzo Mkhize, the archives man for the Natal Mercury newspaper and he is sending the article about the mass healings in Durban, S.A. and I also have other newspaper stories about other people who have been healed. I want to at least insert 1, 2, or 3 of them, because you and Weaver are spreading lies about Branham. At least Harrell gave an honest report in his book and what he said about the healings should be included in Wikipedia. I believe the people who said they didn't believe should be removed, because the proof is there that multitudes were healed. In looking for "As John the Baptist was sent.." I found a prophecy that was given in 1958. Here's part of it: “Yea, and so even unto those whom he hath come; yea, they have assembled together, yea, they have met in their council chambers. Yea, the leaders of my people have counciled together; and they have passed judgment even upon him. They have said in their secret chambers: ‘We shall reject him; yea, we shall search out a fault with him. Yea, we shall find many faults with him, and we shall teach our people. Yea and we shall tell them, that this also is Be-elzebub. Yea, it is not the Spirit of the Lord that has sent Him’.”User:Danpeanuts 4 August 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Danpeanuts, are you saying that people that disagree with you should be removed from Wikipedia? Darlig Gitarist (talk) 04:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all. You have in the article one unnamed person who (in his opinion) thought nearly no one was healed. Also, the Canadian Assembly of God leader who (In His Opinion) thought it was fake. These are only opinions, why not the facts? True--not everyone gets healed, but a large number do, and a few newspapers tell about it. When Jesus was here, I think 10 lepers were the most that He healed at the same time. At the Durban meeting, truckloads of wheelchairs, crutches, etc. were carried off the racetrack. This was newspaper headlines. Why do you want to just list all the negatives that you can find about what Jesus did in 1951? Why must the truth be suppressed? Do you realize that this is not honest? As a Christian, we are supposed to tell the truth even when goes against our personal religion. Please let there be balance. User:danpeanuts 06:05, 5 August 2017

Also, why does the reference to Jim Jones keep getting put in here? The article from the University of San Diego about JJ was written by Mr. Collins, who also has a website called "Seek Ye the Truth" where he does nothing but bash Branham. He is totally unqualified to be writing for the University of San Diego or Wikipedia. I'm asking again that the association of JJ and Branham be removed. It's obvious that you are using JJ to stain the reputation of Branham. Here's the last request for removal from a previous post: Are you aware that John referred to what Jesus said as "the Message?" (1 John 1:5, 3:11) There is no connection to be drawn between JJ and WB based on Jim Jones use of the phrase. There is no evidence that Jim Jones had any impression or impact in the life or ministry of William Branham therefore the comment is not appropriate. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest Jim Jones was impacted by William Branham. The fact that William Branham ministered at this certain meeting where Jim Jones was present does not establish what you are seeking to establish. William Branham was in meetings with perhaps millions of people and tens of thousands of ministers over his lifetime, and so to reference Jim Jones on that bases—that inturn makes him the subject of this article, is out of order. Nevertheless, if there is information that Jim Jones was someway effected by William Branham, then the proper place to establish that is on the Jim Jones article. Electseed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.187.108.116 (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. Section removed. Rev107 (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC) User:danpeanuts 10:30 p.m. 8 August 2017

In order to have a balance, after the 2 people who were critical that Weaver mentioned, there should be something telling of the thousands who really were healed in this ministry. I have the newspaper articles and page numbers (The Durban Natal Mercury isn't digitized, but Senzo, their archives man, will gladly send a picture of any article you ask for, as he has done for me). I would like to add this paragraph (Let me know if there are any changes that would make it better):

Perhaps the largest number of mass healing miracles in the world came at Branham's meetings in Durban, South Africa in 1951. One newspaper had the heading “Cripples Rise from Wheel-Chairs and Walk” “There were scenes of mass-healing of cripples and stretcher cases getting up and walking” following Branham’s prayer. A huge crowd came forward: crippled women and children threw down their crutches and leg irons; mothers wept as children took a few steps, for some the first time in their lives. Twisted bodies were made straight, deaf and dumb were healed. There was a TB and Cancer case mentioned which were both healed. An 18-year old deaf girl was healed in Winnipeg,. An arthritis patient walked onto the stage with help and then walked lively away in El Paso.

Weaver appears to be a deceiver. I want to ask again that his opinions be removed--They are not fact--only opinion, and do not qualify to be in Wikipedia (like his opinion that Branham made up the story about the light and the voice and that the income tax case had something to do with his drop in popularity. Harrell told the truth about that--Branham said 1956 was the year that America would either accept or reject Christ. After they rejected, his sermons included rebukes for unbelief like women cutting their hair, etc.). I do want to thank you for not re-posting Weaver's opinion that the halo was a scratched negative. Also, would like to delete John Collin's opinion that tries to make him associated with Jim Jones killing the people.

One more request: Can we tell about the 2 signs that the Angel told him he would receive--the hand vibrations, and knowing the secrets of hearts: how God was able to speak directly through his mouth and tell people the secrets of their hearts, diseases they had, and if they needed to confess any sins to God? user: danpeanuts 6:30 p.m. 9 August 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 13:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

You mentioned above that Stadsklev's book had serious errors in it. I looked at both articles and the only thing different was that one said they prayed for Florence Nightengale in a hotel and the other in a house. That is only a minor thing. They both agreed that she was later completely healed. Also, the newspaper clipping of the mass healing in Stadsklev's book is exactly the same as I got from the newspaper archives. Stadsklev's book seems reliable. Why all the doubt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs) 16:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Thousands of people healed? This specifically disagrees with the comments of Pentecostal historican Walter Hollenweger. He specifically states that William Branham had a good diagnostic gift but very few people were healed. As i said previously, if you can get your edits to be accepted in the article on Faith healing, then I will agree to accept them here.

Weaver's book is secondary source material. Are you aware that Harrell wrote the preface to Weaver's book? They are both university professors. I am sorry but the article on William M. Branham must be balanced and weighted according to secondary source material. Darlig Gitarist (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Darlig Gitarist (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, It is not right that you have complete control over this site as you show bias against this man. The newspaper articles I have quoted from have also been witnessed by thousands of other people--some still alive today. I can understand why you don't want others to see the results from the South Africa campaign because they go against the picture you are trying to paint. Harrell may have written a preface to Weaver's book, but I am not interested in Weaver's book because of the obvious bias and the opinions he gives instead of facts. Weaver may have written a book, but Weaver is not an honest man. Harrell at least tried to represent the truth to the best of his ability.

Since you didn't answer the questions above, I went ahead and posted the newspaper articles. I, personally want to see at least actual facts presented that shows the gift worked and not only opinions from people with opposing beliefs. I asked you before and I'm asking again: What would you like to see changed about the South Africa campaign? It is a major happening in this ministry. The newspaper articles are verified by other newspapers in the area too. I can get the page numbers, etc. or whatever you want from them too. Why try to hide the truth just because it doesn't agree with what you think? For one thing, your denomination teaches that women should wear a man-made covering, while St. Paul said her (long) hair is given her for a covering (I Cor. 11:15b) and if she doesn't have it to shave it all off (11:6). The reason this man was sent was to restore our faith in the Word of God. I'm asking you as a Christian: Will you allow the truth to be told? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs) 13:31, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Darlig, Here's the information again with confirmation by historian Donald Gee. If I don't hear from you, I'll go ahead publish it:

Perhaps the largest number of mass healing miracles in the world came at Branham's meetings in Durban, South Africa in 1951. Thousands were healed at the same time. A sea or people stood to give their hearts to Christ — Many times the 3,000 at Pentecost. Two newspapers carried the story: One had the heading “Cripples Rise from Wheel-Chairs and Walk” “There were scenes of mass-healing of cripples and stretcher cases getting up and walking” following Branham’s prayer. A huge crowd came forward: crippled women and children threw down crutches and leg irons; mothers wept as children took a few steps, for some the first time in their lives. Twisted bodies straightened up, club feet, deaf and dumb were healed. There was a TB and Cancer case mentioned in which both were healed. Danpeanuts14:10, 8/15/2017

References

Discussion about references

I have seen this article evolve and there are a great number of edits which get added to essentially give credibility to a man whose works and statements are at best questionable, and are at worst dubious. There have been many sources which are not credible when speaking to the events which are presented as fact concerning William Branham's healing ministry and his acceptance in the community. The newspaper articles which have been cited do not exist in some cases, particularly those of the generally available print media concerning Branham's healing campaigns and public meetings. The articles which do exist do not contain any relevant first party verifiable information. Having written Press Releases in the past, the articles which do exist and which have been printed rely heavily on the information provided by Branham's own magazine for which he served as editor. This it seems to me is not a credible independently verifiable record. TIMKRAUS