Talk:William M. Branham/Archive 1

message: The article states:
On the night of January 24, 1950, an unusual photograph was taken during a speaking engagement in the Sam Houston Coliseum in Houston, Texas. As Branham stood at the podium, an apparent halo of fire appeared above his head. A photograph of this phenomenon was produced, the only one of its film roll that developed an image. George J. Lacy, an investigator of questioned documents, subjected the negative to testing [1] and declared at a news conference that, "To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world's history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated." The original of the photograph is in the archives of the Religious Department of the Smithsonian Institution.
However, a search of the Smithsonian's archives returns no results. I'm having a little trouble seeing anything especially extraordinary about the photo (as a photographer, it looks like a light on the ceiling to me).
The claims about the photo being housed at the Smithsonian are untrue (it seems to be an urban legend that follows the photo around - I've heard it before) and the only sites I can find that reference George J. Lacy are Branhamist.
I don't think the claims belong here as fact, as a statement of myth surrounding Branham, maybe. But it's not fact.
Wisco 22:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not an urban legend.  The individual that posted the original comment regarding the Smithsonian simply had the facts mixed up.  The original of the photograph is not in the Smithsonian but rather in the Library of Congress.  I personally inspected the original photograph in Washington, DC about 10 years ago.  I have changed the article to refer to the Library of Congress.  -  Taxee 13:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo claims 

message: I have taken this out of the first section, until someone can produce evidence that Branham was a Mason. I cannot find any evidence of it in his transcribed sermons, and I am pretty sure that he was not associated with the Masons in any way --Malachi456 02:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Branham a Mason? 

message: From a number of Branham’s comments, particularly in his later sermons the definite impression is given that Branham had personally gone to the palace to pray for King George and that this resulted in a instantaneous healing: 
King George of England with multiple sclerosis, when I went over and prayed for him. Couldn't even set but just a few minutes at a time. Next day, played twenty-eight holes of golf. (‘Jesus of Nazareth Passeth By’, 24/5/58)
And I been in king's palaces, went to prayed for King George of England. I was with the Gustavus up in Swi--Sweden. And I been in many king's palaces, and King Farouk, and--and many other places, and great potentates and monarchs. Some of the greatest the world has today, I've had the privilege of going in and talk with them, interview. I've been in lovely homes.  (‘Seal of God’, 16/2/61)
And as you know that when I went there and prayed for King George when he had multiple sclerosis and he was healed instantly; the next day he played eighteen holes of golf, and he couldn't even set up for just a few minutes at a time. (‘Why’, 13/4/61)
I've been in kings' palaces. I prayed for King George of England, you know, when he was healed from multiple sclerosis. I prayed for other kings, potentates, monarchs. (‘Uncertain Sound’.14/7/62)
Oh, my. I've been in Hollywood, and I've prayed for King George in the palace, and Gustav up in Sweden, and different places. (‘God Hinding Himself in Simplicity’, 12/4/63)
However earlier he had been more specific in claiming that he had actually prayed for King George without traveling to him, though he did claim that he went to England later to see him (on his way to Finland in April 1950):
And he was a friend to the king's private secretary, and through there King George of England sent word to me. I have his statements and have his letters of his fields and every... To come pray for him of multiple sclerosis, and so I couldn't go up that time. So I just wired back and told the king that I would pray for him here, that God would hear here just the same as he would over there. And so, then another  telegram come through and wanted me to come on over immediately. Later when I went to England, over there, to see him, and the Lord healed him. He was--couldn't even stand up over five minutes at a time, and he... I believe the second day he played eighteen holes of golf, and never was bothered with it no more until the very day he died. And I was in Africa when he died. They found a little tumor here on his lung. They started to cut it open and air got to it some way, I don't know, and caused a blood clot to go to his brain and killed him instantly. So very fine man... (‘Testimony’, 29/11/53)
In other accounts of his visit to London he would refer to going off to Buckingham Palace and Westminster Abbey, however on at least one occasion (‘Testimony’, 29/11/53) he admitted that "The king wasn't in at the time". It is sometimes claimed that Branham prayed for King George in person on some other occasion, however it does not seem that Branham ever described an actual meeting with the King.  The visit to London was mentioned in ‘A Man Sent from God’ (p208) however no mention was made of any royal visit.
The probability that no such meeting occurred is reinforced by the fact that when the topic of the Royalty came up he would often remark about having seen the King and Queen as they were driven past in a carriage when they were visiting Canada, rather than any face to face meeting.
Branham's claim to have seen the King and Queen in Vancouver Canada is also dubious. On a number of occasions he claimed to have seen the King and Queen whilst in the company of Ern Baxter:
It was the Queen of England. Why, you would've felt honored, because she's a great woman. I got to see her once. I saw the old mother queen. I got to see them when King George just when he still had his multiple sclerosis, 'fore he sent for me come pray for him. And when we passed down the street in Canada, and standing there, there was the queen in her beautiful blue dress, and King George with his, setting up, great suffering with ulcers in his stomach and multiple sclerosis, which they said he was suffering tremendously that day. But you'd have never knowed it: sit just as straight. Why? He was a king, and he conducted himself like a king. And I noticed Mr. Baxter, which used to be my campaign manager; he just wept when he seen them pass. And I said, ‘Ernie, what you weeping about?’ He said, ‘Billy, there goes the king and the queen.’ Said, ‘Oh, aren't they lovely?’ I said, ‘Yes, Mr. Baxter, they are.’(Jesus at the Door, 29/5/58)
Sometime ago I was standing in Vancouver, British Colombia, and the King George of England had come over to visit Canada. And he was making his way down along the street in the carriage, and his beautiful queen setting by him... And Mr. Baxter, one of my associates, he was weeping, because he said, "Just think, Brother Branham, our king passes by. (Message to the Laodicean Church, 9/6/58)''
King George's only visit to Vancouver occurred in May 1939.  There is no record of Branham visiting Canada prior to 1947 and significantly it was only around this time that Branham met Ern Baxter who subsequently became a campaign manager for him.  From Branham's accounts it is apparent that he considered Ern Baxter a reasonably close acquaintance, not just someone he might have met once, who would have subsequently have forgotten the meeting. While it might be conceivable that Branham could have made a trip to Vancouver in 1939, unrecorded apart from these comment about seeing the King and Queen, his claimed association with Ern Baxter at the time is rather less plausible.  A close association between Ern Baxter and Branham in 1939 is not likely to be something that Ern Baxter would have forgotten or failed to have mentioned.
Aside from these implausibilities, there are major inconsistencies in his various accounts.  On some occasions he said that rather than actually seeing the King and Queen, he and Ern Baxter were listening to a radio broadcast:
And a good friend of mine, Brother Ern Baxter, as we were listening to it on the broadcast as it came through, him and his lovely queen setting there... And we were setting in the room and I'll never forget it. Ern got so overcome that he jumped up out of the chair and threw his arms around me and started weeping. And I said, "What's the excitement all about, Brother Baxter?" He said, "Brother Branham, that's my king.(Door in a Door,  23/2/63).
The likely explanation is that Branham was repeating a story told by Ern Baxter of seeing the King and Queen and over time began to believe he had witnessed it himself. 
Aside from the rather misleading statements regarding the circumstances of Branham praying for King George there is also the questions of whether he was actually cured and whether it had anything to do with Branham.
Firstly it should be noted that King George never had multiple sclerosis.  In 1948 King George was diagnosed with arterio-sclerosis (‘hardening of the arteries’) which was probably a consequence of his heavy smoking. This is a quite different condition to multiple sclerosis (presumably Branham did not use the discernment of the ‘angel’ to make a diagnosis on this case). By the end of 1948 the blood circulation in King George’s legs had deteriorated to the point that he was significantly incapacitated.  On 12 March 1949 a operation was performed to improve the circulation in his legs. This proved successful and he improved significantly, however this was not a cure but a partial relief for some of his symptoms and King George continued to suffer from arterio-scleroris up until his death.  Branham evidently  heard reports of  King George’s improved health following the operation and attributed it to his prayers.
It is true that answer to prayer can come in the form of a successful operation, however it is somewhat  presumptuous of Branham to claim the credit for it, considering the many other Christians that would have been praying for him (prayers for the health and wellbeing of the monarch is a common feature of liturgy in the Anglican Church and numerous other Christians would have been praying without prompting).
The only thing that appears to connect Branham with the King is a claimed telegram requesting prayer, though it is more probable that it was actually from his private secretary on his behalf,  whom Branham claimed was a friend of someone he healed.
In summary Branham’s claims to have healed  King George are inaccurate and show signs of embellishment. Rather than providing evidence of his healing ministry, the idea he had anything to do with King George’s state of health is reliant upon his reputation.  The rather shameless name dropping, in repeatedly mentioning the King, should be considered when claims are made for Branham’s humility.
Rev107 03:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Branham and King George VI

message: I tried editing this article in 2013 but gave up after being embroiled in a dispute over content.  I ended up with the distinct feeling that one needed to be a lawyer to edit anything on Wikipedia.  So I walked away.  
I came back recently after reading a new book on the subject of Branham that was published earlier this year which contained a lot of information on Branham that had not previously been published.  It became readily apparent after a short time that things had not changed with trying to edit this article.  While I wish compromise could be reached, it does not appear that this is likely to happen without third party intervention at some level. 
I should also add that, while I formerly attended a church that followed Branham, my aim is to present a fair and balanced picture of Branham.  I do appreciate that Wikipedia is not a place for advocacy in favour of or in opposition to a movement. What I would like to see is a neutral, balanced and careful summary of the existing literature of Branham.  I do not believe that the article currently reflects this. 
I have done a fair amount of reading of the relevant Wikipedia policies and believe that to make this article factually correct and NPOV, we need to arrive at a reasonable consensus on the following:
*The article should conform to the NRM manual of style (NRMMOS).
*As outlined in the NRMMOS, the article should be based on reliable secondary sources.  IMHO, the article as it stands needs a thorough review to ensure that this is the case.
*As also outlined in the NRMMOS, editors also should not use primary sources for explicit or implicit advocacy for or against a new religious movement, unless they cite a reliably published secondary source using the same primary source in the same manner.
*The NRMMOS also recommends that an article on the founder of a religious movement should cover at least the following points:
#Biography, including important events in the movement's history
#Teachings
#Reception of the founder and her or his movement
:Nowhere is it suggested that any negative analysis from secondary sources should be excluded from the relevant section and relegated to a "criticism" section.
If Rev107 is willing, I would like to suggest trying the use of a third opinion.  This is neither mandatory nor binding. Rather, it is a voluntary, nonbinding, informal mechanism through which two editors currently in dispute can request an opinion from an uninvolved third editor.
Trying to edit the article in any reasonable fashion is a complete waste of time if the majority of substantive edits are simply reverted without any willingness to compromise or undertake a reasonable discussion on the merits of the edit.  Taxee (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute resolution 

message: I am going to clean up the footnotes in the article which could take some time.  The current footnoting style makes editing the article difficult.  Using a bibliography and small footnotes will make editing easier and should also help those that are interested in doing further research.
I have started with Weaver (as he was the first footnote) then will go through the entire article.  I will not be making any edits other than the footnotes while doing this.  
I will also be going through the article and removing embedded links in the footnotes.  Embedded links are to be avoided as outlined in Wikipedia:Citing sources#Avoid embedded links:
:Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation, because they are highly susceptible to linkrot. Wikipedia allowed this in its early years...  This is no longer recommended. Raw links are not recommended in lieu of properly written out citations, even if placed between ref tags... Taxee (talk) 03:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: I have removed the tag based on the edits over the past 2 months which relates everything in the article to secondary sources, primarily Weaver and Harrell.  Taxee (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag Removed

message: Instead of engaging in an edit conflict, I'm going to list problems with the content/headings being added back:
* The section "Ordained a Baptist Minister" is not referenced at all and refers to the subject as "Billy".  Generally, we refer to subjects by their last name, and subsequently in a paragraph, use a pronoun, in this case, 'he'.
* Many of the headings don't reflect their content. A couple examples:
** "Pillar of Fire Appears While Baptizing" -- there is a bright light reported, but no "pillar of fire", in the content as written.  Editors aren't allowed to read in their personal thoughts into what happened.
** "Stunts of the Devil" and "Devil Uses the Government" -- these couldn't be more obviously POV. An editor must keep the content and headings factual and neutral.  Especially in these cases, there seems to be no interest in being objective.
* Most of the headings don't use the wiki heading style, with non-proper nouns lower-cased, and we use 'and' instead of '&'. This is a minor concern compared to the above items.
* Also, it's unusual to break sections like this into single paragraphs with headings.  It looks unprofessional and not serious.
Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 01:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right. Sorry to cause problems with your policies. I also apologize for being so biased I see your point there too.--Footprints on the Sands of Time (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverted edits 

message: It has been proposed that the following addition be made to the article:
The seven major events of the 1933 vision were:
#Mussolini would conquer Ethiopia, but then die a horrible death at the hands of his own people.
#America would be drawn into a world war against Germany which would be headed up by the Austrian, Adolph Hitler, who would be vanquished and come to a mysterious end.
#Nazism and Fascism would come to nothing but Communism would flourish.
#The fourth vision indicated the advance of technology, showing an egg-shaped car with a glass bubble roof which drove itself as the passengers played some kind of game.
#The fifth scene had to do with the disappearance of modesty. He saw a woman, fully dressed at first, but her clothing became increasingly revealing until she was wearing nothing but “a little fig leaf type apron.”
#There will arise over America a beautiful but cruel woman of great power and terrible splendor. Branham suggested three interpretations of this femme fatale: 1) The Roman Catholic Church, 2) a female president, 3) a symbol of womankind overthrowing God-ordained gender roles and dominating men.
#“In the last and seventh vision I heard a terrible explosion. As I turned to look I saw nothing but debris, craters and smoke all over the land of America.
Reference provided is ”Branham, W,, Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, William Branham Evangelistic Outreach, 1965" with no page number.
There are several problems with this proposed edit:
1. It is based on primary source material
2. Because the primary source material disagrees with itself in several places, listing this material without listing the other versions of these visions is inappropriate.
3..  This primary source material is not a direct quote.  Therefore, given that other primary source material is at odds with this information, the proposed edit must be considered original research.  Original research is not permitted per Wikipedia policy.
4. Given that these "prophecies" are dealt with in Weaver's secondary source material, that is where the information in the article should come from.
Taxee (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: That does seem to be the biggest issue with proposed additions to the article - they've mostly been based on primary sources with questionable reliability. While that last vague tidbit about a female president is somewhat interesting, I would argue for maintaining the status quo for now. Unless any of his revelations or sermons can be found to be clearly relevant to his Teachings or his Legacy - as established by secondary sources - they should not be included. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: William Branham's 7 Visions of 1933