Talk:Frank Sandford

message: :You haven't explained the reason why you want to include this material, which I find useless.  Why is it important?--John Foxe (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why Harriman is important.  Nor do I understand why his or Sandford's specific language makes a difference. The trials would have taken place if Harriman had been in Timbuktu.--John Foxe (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Frankly, to me it's just rambling distraction for the reader. I don't believe there's any reason to mention Harriman outside the notes, and both his and Sandford's comments are trite and add nothing to the story. Classic footnote stuff at best. What was important for a newspaper reporter a hundred years ago is not necessarily of interest today.--John Foxe (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I'd just save up a bunch of objections, and we can bring in a third party toward the end of the revision process. To my mind you've not provided a reason for either Harriman's importance or the inclusion of the quotations.--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Are the words of Harriman important?

message: This section of the article is currently inaccurate, and in some significant ways: "Sandford insisted that sickness was "the fruit of sin" that could only be removed by confession and "prevailing prayer." Those who lived in "perfection through the power of the Holy Ghost" should enjoy health in every organ of their body, although some Satanic illnesses were so severe that they required the laying on of hands to cast demons out of the sufferer"
I have checked the citation on this and find that Nelson says something far different from this passage as constructed. She says that Sandford started repeating Dowie in condemning doctors and pharmacies, insisting that Satan had caused all illness and disease.  Nelson contrasts this view with the larger evangelical community, which "often talked about sickness as 'the ultimate fruit of sin,' in the words of one spokesman, 'the penalty of violating God's laws,' a notion not entirely in conflict with the perceptions of the medical profession of the day. Everything considered, if you were sick, you had better find out why, beyond the physical cause. God might permit illness as a way to discipline and instruct, but those who lived in absolute trust lived inn victory over Satan's onslaughts."
In other words, Sandford was departing from mainstream evangelical Christianity, which said sickness was the fruit of sin.  Sandford instead was saying it was the fruit of the devil or it might be permitted by God.  Whatever the cause you needed to find it out.
Thus for Sandford there were multiple reasons a person may be sick, but it was important to follow the directions the disciples had been given to lay hands on the sick and cast out devils.
Nelson also says that Shiloh did a lot of quiet praying, even as the more noisy prayer was becoming more popular.  I don't see any mention by Nelson in the cited section that confession and "prevailing prayer" were essential to deal with sickness.  Neither does she say that Sandford believed those in "perfection through the power of the Holy Ghost should enjoy health in every organ.  What she does say is that "the Shiloh hospital stood for 'perfection through the power of the Holy Ghost . . . and for 'health throughout every organ of the body."  Thus the hospital symbolized this, even as some members still got sick.  Since sickness might have been something God permitted, it was NOT always the fruit of sin.
I'll try and come up with a suggested revision when I have time.
FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite follow Sandford here, but when you come up with a revision, I'll check it out in Nelson.  Thanks for catching those errors in my descriptions of the trials.  I must have been napping.  Actually, Nelson put me off in that chapter by reproducing so much of the trial record.--John Foxe (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Your idea seems closer to Nelson than what I wrote. I'll switch out what's there for a tweaked version of your idea.--John Foxe (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Nelson says nothing about "imitating the disciples" or "his heroes." (And I'm sure you're aware that although James was an Apostle, he wasn't one of the Twelve.)  Besides, the phrase "believed his methods were in imitation of the Bible and biblical characters" is vague.  What don't you like about "Sandford taught that receiving treatment from physicians violated the teaching of the Bible"?--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

text: "Felt compelled" is both indefinite and passive and so therefore weak writing. "Follow the Bible" is vague because Sandford was basing his teaching on only one verse in the Bible, James 5:14. Neither James nor Sandford said to "first" call the elders. In Sandford's practice doctors were sometimes first called, then the "elders" came to pray.--John Foxe (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, thanks, that was an improvement.--John Foxe (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Doctors provided no treatment at Shiloh. Nelson says, "Doctors would be permitted at Bethesda for diagnoses and consultation, but no medications would be provided, not so much as a headache powder or a laxative." "In view of Shiloh's position on medical care, the idea of a hospital on the grounds aroused great public curiosity.  What was it for?" (122, 119)--John Foxe (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I've added the word "consultations."  Anything beyond that needs proof in the sources. If one has say, cancer, diagnosis and consultation are not treatment.--John Foxe (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beliefs on Healing 

message: :Florence, 
:It just struck me that in talking about Hiss's monstrous dissertation, you suggested that "using Hiss could lengthen the article by three or four times its current size." But there are limits to the size of Wikipedia articles (though these are often honored in the breach it seems) listed here.  Depending how you figure the KBs, "Frank Sandford" is already at, or beyond, the suggested upper limit—a good Wiki-reason to cut rather than add.--John Foxe (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The KB size is given at the top when you're in edit mode.  Right this minute it's 43KB.  I agree that Hiss is probably the most reliable source, everything else being equal; and although I wouldn't say it was necessary to use Hiss to meet NPOV, I'm sure his dissertation will be helpful.  Nevertheless, I have no problem cutting the current article to make room for new material. My interest here is the most reliable information, presented succinctly, in good literary form.--John Foxe (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Length

message: John,
Please do not arbitrarily move sourced material from the article to a footnote.  At the least this is bad Wikipedia etiquette, at worst a violation of Wikipedia's rules.  I do not know why an additional two sentences giving more of the why and when about the event that Sandford would probably see as one of the most important in his life is worthy of reducing to a footnote.  Also, by restoring the line about Sandford becoming a Christian "a few weeks after" attending a revival meeting the narrative is now contradictory.  Hiss makes it clear that Sandford converted the night after first attending, not a few weeks later.
FlorenceWhittaker (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the date of Sandford's conversion into the text and removed the "few weeks after" line to end the contradiction.  (I'm not sure whether Hiss or Nelson is correct about the timing of Sandford's conversion. Nelson says, "For a week he vacillated." Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding.)--John Foxe (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life Section 

message: Hello, y'all didn't provide a section link in your request for a third opinion, so I'm not sure what exactly you'd like an opinion on. It's not a big deal, but I'd appreciate if either or both of you would clarify. Thank you. --Danger (talk) 09:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll confess to suggesting to FlorenceWhittaker that if the two of us worked ourselves into an impasse, we could ask for a Third opinion, but personally I don't think we're there yet. Perhaps she has a different opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, good to know. I did a close read of the first few sections last night and wonder if y'all wouldn't mind some copyedit-y goodness after this issue is resolved. --Danger (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What, my writing isn't flawless?--John Foxe (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I thought that, in order not to intimidate readers with perfection, I might add some errors to make the article more accessible. --Danger (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  3O discussion 

message: OK, I am a rank newbie, and being one ,I mistakenly used the sandbox and asked for a review of the bulk (apologies) my comments presented here over 3 years from the last comment posting.  Perhaps my concerns are still relevant.  My comment is obviously not NPOV because it is in the realm of "original research".  But my motivation is from a reader's feeling that the article is NPOV in a major way for the reason pointed out in this talk page posted by John Foxe, 4 Aug. 2010 observig that the citations almost all are from Nelson or State vs. Sandford.  The tone of the article seems to rely solely on critical record of Sandford and even confined to the negative part of a "chartismatic" character.  Perhaps teh citations are exhaustive and there is no record of the characteristics of a positive nature.  Perthaps there are none that meet the standard of secondary sourcing.  I will attampt to find some.  In teh meantime, pease see in my comments, personal knowledge that the reported abuse of John, if true, were not traumatically debilitating.  There must be something positive that can be said about Frank Sandford, if not just a single citation about how he was able to exercise such power over people for such a log duration.  That said, the following is why I have a 'feeling' that the NPOV standard is not met as teh article stands or at least until a sincere effort is mde to find some redeeming secondary source quality to the eccentric Sandford:
Request review at WP:AFC Frank Sandford
[Personal note. This is my first foray into Wikipedia in an editing capacity and I was not aware of secondary vs. primary source policy or any other editing guidelines. I have anecdotal personal experience with John Sandford interesting to other serious editors, perhaps, as an epilogue for to the Frank Sandford article. I met with John Sandford in intimate small family gatherings 25 years ago in Trout Lake, WA. There is a happy ending to the description in the article about the prosecution of Frank Sandford for what could have been traumatically debilitating child abuse. John lived into his 90's and exhibited a quite well adjusted and happy countenance until is last days. What is really interesting, imo, is the transition of the son as a child from indoctrination into cultish premillenialism by a raging father to his rather radical and certainly self-discovered transition to a gentle doctrine of universal reconciliation.] There is also at least one center on the West Coast, Forks, WA and past attempt, 1974-1976, to establish one in Trout Lake, WA with intent to establish an intentional spiritual (Church of God Seventh Day) community by families, Skerbitz, Clark, (Frank) LeBert and Philip and Rowena Sandford, the son of John Sandford and granddaughter of John. <personal conversations> John, when in his 90's and his wife (?) visited the young Sandfords periodically from their missions to the Southwest and Mexico in an old car and Airstream travel trailer. The elder Sandfords periodically visited until their deaths. John Sandford was an absolutely joyful and delightful man full of memorized hymns, multiple verses. Never did the assembled group of visitors hear the same hymn twice. John spoke of his reading the Bible cover to cover 36 times and delighted in quoting scripture. He and his wife traveled with a former Baptist minister, Mr. Sperling. The three missionaries had deduced after all their collective years in biblical studies what would have been regarded as heresy by apocalyptic Frank Sandford. They gently espoused a doctrine of universal salvation (reconciliation), in much the same language as Pope Francis was quoted in Vatican Radio website: http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass:_culture_of_encounter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445 The Sandfords and Sperling offered many biblical citations much as Ernest L. Martin who makes a case for universal reconciliation through grace here: http://www.tlchrist.info/univrsl3.htm The Martin complications of future resurrections they did not mention. They did emphasize 1Corinth 12:4-7 repeatedly emphasizing the “all in all”. <personal conversation> 4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. 5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. 6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. 7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.” <KJV> [Ed. note. The John Sandford son and granddaughter are a married couple and still friends and reside in Trout Lake and can be contacted. From them I will get John's wife's name and their age at death. I don't know if there is a way to include any of this new material into the article or if there is any interest in it enough to justify my additional pursuit. Let me know if I can help. I am now living between Ussurisk, Primorye, Russia and Trout Lake, WA] Lon Ussurisk Subject/headline Lon Ussurisk (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are personally interesting, and I hope they can be preserved somewhere in some more permanent form.  But because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, your recollections, to be cited here, would first need to appear in some secondary source (perhaps a thesis or dissertation) because of the Wikipedia rule that prevents original research. If I can personally be of any assistance, please feel free to contact me.--John Foxe (talk) 10:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by Lon Ussurisk