User talk:Rev107

Please feel free to make any comments concerning the "Doctrine" section of the article about William Branham here. GBU, Ken. ^[1]

Ken, is there a way that would not be considered critical of referring to those who consider Branham to be more significant than just a Pentecostal healing evangelist? Wikipedia already has a page called "Branhamism", and if this word is itself not NPOV, then that creates a problem for that page. Branhamism may be all that we have, which like Methodism has come from the mouths of those who are not sympathetic. For Christian groups who are anti-denominational it is a continuing problem that they do not wish to be named but considered simply Christians; however sociologically it is important to locate various beliefs within a historical context, and therefore we need a name. It is inevitable that those who will not name themselves will receive a name they do not like, I suppose! I proposes the sentence should be changed from "critics" to "observers." Blessings Hyper3 (talk) 10:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hyper, the difference with the name "Methodism" is that it is now a term that is embraced by the Church. I know of no one who accepts the teaching of William Branham who regards the term as anything but derogatory. The term most used by those who follow these beliefs is "Message Believers". Changing the word "critics" to "observers" or "commentators" or "scholars" or "church historians" is acceptable to me. Rev107 (talk) 03:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Have attempted an inclusive amendment. Let me know what you think. Hyper3 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay for the Trinity Foundation to use Wikipedia as a second web-site? Articles about various healing evangelists have become basically the same as the criticisms found on the Trinity Foundation web-site. Isn't this a violation of Wikipedia guideline, "What Wikipedia is not?" Is there anything that can be done about religious bigotry toward Pentecostals?Harvest09 (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello. If you are interested, I have preserved The Message of the Hour article here. I am working on it in my spare time to better reference it and intend to try and reintroduce it as Doctrines of William Branham or something similar. Biis08 has blanked the article and redirected it to William Branham, which was not the action approved at the recent AFD. Consensus was to redirect and merge it with Branhamism. He has not yet responded to me about his intentions, so I have not taken any action yet other than to correct the redirect. I also had a breif discussion with editors at WP:VERIFY and from what I gathered, it is acceptable to use primary and non-third party sources to establish basic doctrines and religious teachings in some cases. I believe that would apply to the content of that article. I have been trying to source it out of the book by Weaver, but I believe it would be ok to also use the Spoken Word books and similar publications to establish doctrine. Charles Edward (Talk) 14:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)