This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Thank-you to the two users who made substantial recent edits. The material is quite helpful overall, however I would like to point you to some Wikipedia policies which describe important improvements. Please write in a neutral point of view (see the policy WP:NPOV), and provide citations from respected sources, which is particularly important for controversial-sounding statements (see WP:CITE). Statements such as "SDA leadership was so frightened of him in his final year of college that they chose to deny him his diploma and disfellowship him..." do not use neutral language, and a disputable-sounding statement such as this one needs a good reference.
On another note, a statement which got deleted read, "Robert left in 1957 due to theological controversy. He never returned there to complete his formal education." If the 1957 date is accurate, the article would benefit by having it reinserted, preferably with a citation.
On a more personal note (and now I'm bending the policies a little...), Bob's journey through life is a fascinating one, and I'm sure you're both very interested for one reason or another. I think I saw him at Avondale College in 2006, but I didn't really know who he was at the time. Colin MacLaurin 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, please write only a brief summary in the introductions, with successive levels of expansion afterward ( Wikipedia:Summary style may be the policy on this). Colin MacLaurin 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Colin, for your response. I did a lot of research and other tasks for Robert Brinsmead between 1975 and 1979. My name is on the masthead of Present Truth/Verdict from September 1976 until August 1979, first as Research Director and then Research Consultant. That portion of this effort for which I have much first-hand knowledge I have written or edited to be concise, reasonably objective, and with a more neutral posture toward what is claimed. Much of two sections, on the 1960s and the 1970s, is my contribution (and I freely acknowledge it needs expansion).
I did the research for "1844 Re-examined." Brinsmead didn't simply "reject the investigative judgment," as is currently stated (someone changed what I wrote). I am not overstating when I wrote that he systematically dismantled the theological rationale for the denomination's claim to its unique calling. The "Investigative Judgment" entry notes 1844 Re-examined," but it does not socially locate it, nor did it attempt to respond theologically. It was not a peripheral document in its day, though denominational authority tended to avoid its place and presence in the conflict that came to a head at Glacier View.
The statement as it is now written is, of course, narrowly correct. But it vastly understates the impact of his thinking and influence in this matter. Taken together with the Glacier View travesty and Walter Rea's "The White Lie," many hundreds of ministers (I remember a number bandied around in those days - 2500 to 2700 - but I cannot verify that) and thousands of lay people left the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I believe the ministers in Australia who left numbered in the hundreds. I did not follow these matters much after 1982, so I cannot comment on events after that.
From what I can gather, it seems that William Ferguson (and perhaps others) have constructed the major narrative to date on Brinsmead's current beliefs. The "voice" of this portion is much too uncritical, and to my thinking it is much too promotional. There are some sweeping generalizations that seem unwarranted. "Environmental science should be as brave" comes across as smarmy scolding for environmental science's assumed fundamentalist bent (the narrative uncritically infers that environmental science is a monolith -- someone in that field will read this some day and wryly smile before moving on). Also, some of the narrative reads like an insider's comments for other insiders. Referring to Robert Brinsmead as Bob is a case in point. And whether or not Jack Zwemer (I corrected Zwemer -- Someone spelled his name with two m's) has ironically captured some element of Mr. Brinsmead's current thinking ("Brinsmead remains unsure whether this is a compliment from Jack or not") sounds too insider-ish. Further, with reference to the purpose of this overall entry, the claim is somewhat beside the point, even if it can be attributed. I have not made much effort to edit this section. I would rather that be done by those who are its architects.
I am not particularly well versed in how to edit Wikipedia entries, and I do appreciate every effort of yours to make this entry flow well. And I would be most interested in hearing from William Ferguson. I am pleased to be part of something that clarifies Mr. Brinsmead's past and present thinking. Doug0531 03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Doug, thanks for your willingness and openness to engage in discussion on the talk page - that's an important sign of a good editor. I have added welcome messages to your and Wmferguson's talk pages, which list a few helpful guidelines. Apparently you are very well informed about Robert Brinsmead; hence, it's great to have your contributions. However that does lead to another policy: Wikipedia:No original research. One paragraph entitled "Citing oneself" currently states,
It is the more controversial statements or those which sound more dubious which particularly need to be cited. There is currently a lot of such "original research" in the article.
I am not precisely sure about how you see the Original Research guideline fitting into what I have contributed thus far. So, permit me to tighten things up a bit, and then feel free to adjust as necessary.
Concerning "1844 Re-Examined": I spent three months gathering all of the materials for what came to be "1844 Re-examined." I did this with no thought to an outcome. As I remember the event in 1979 (here's a bit of trivia, simply FYI), two eight-foot long folding tables were set end-to-end in a conference room in the Fallbrook CA office. I arranged the material in sequence, according to content, extending in one direction for sixteen feet, and then I rounded the end of the table and laid out the rest on the other side, again for sixteen feet. Then I set a chair for Mr. Brinsmead at the beginning. He read and made notes, moving his chair from stack to stack. The writing and conclusions are his, not mine. The mechanics of how this process occurred is not important for the article. I include it here only FYI.
Also, I made a claim in the 1970s section that the interests of PT/Verdict gradually expanded into areas of theology and biblical studies that moved beyond SDA concerns. By that I meant, say, the issues on the covenantal structure of the Hebrew Scriptures (PT, late 1976), as well as the eschatological nature of the NT gospel vis a vis the historical structure of the OT. I never remembered SDA back then to engage scripture for much other than apologetics to buttress SDA distinctives. Perhaps this or that theologian did, but at its heart the denomination did not. That was my point. Is there perhaps a simpler way to say that? Doug0531 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
For example, my quote from Schwarz in the opening sentences. It was not presented as absolute truth, but rather "Schwarz said..." or similar. Schwarz is a respected authority on Adventist history, so he was a good one to quote. Of course, often there will be different significant opinions from different notable authorities, so just include all the major points of view and in proportion. ( WP:NPOV) - Colin MacLaurin
Regarding PT/Verdict moving beyond "parochial" Adventist concerns. I made some changes, because the word "parochial" for example can have a non-neutral connotation of "old fashioned" or "outdated" or similar (I am not assuming you necessarily meant it this way). A refinement would be to say, "expanded into areas not often examined by scholars of the time", however this would certainly need a good reference. If PT claims this, I would make a comment in the article, "PT claimed...", because it is not an independent reference.
Doug0531 said,
You basically want to say that it was a major document. This would be a helpful and informative comment. However the article cannot claim that 1844 Re-Examined, "systematically dismantled the theological rationale...", because many notable sources (e.g. the ATS, BRI) would disagree. Much research went into it, but this is not a helpful statement either. Wikipedia is not about so-called "truth", but rather what various different experts have considered to be "truth". Find a (preferably independent) published reference by a reputable person who commented on the impact it had in the church. I think this is a better way - comment on what effects it precipitated. Perhaps you could quote somebody as saying (in their opinion) it was well argued.
You mentioned the investigative judgment article for example doesn't do justice to this. Please, be bold and improve that article! Colin MacLaurin 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I meant parochial as a descriptor, not as a perjorative. I don't mind that you say it another way, so as to avoid an unwarranted negative connotation. And concerning my comments on dismantling, and your reply to them, it is possible that you simply missed that I have already further adjusted that brief section.
My expanded comments in "talk" are not intended for inclusion into the main body, but merely to provide background. And, fret not thyself that I am in this to promote "truth." The Wikipedia medium is useful up to a point, but only so, because narratives and events from thirty years ago are, by definition, filtered through personal and social history and retrospective impressions (i.e. filters) of recall. Be that as it may, I think I found a way to say something that is accurate and doesn't overstate for the purposes of this entry. Your comments on my recent redactions are welcome.
Colin, in no way to I mean to diminish anything of your effort. Really, you impress me as a good thinker. You had to live through those years to somewhat understand the paranoia. To some Brinsmead was the risk of smallpox on a free blanket. I remember in 1966, at Atlantic Union College (Herbert Douglas was President of AUC then), being admonished to only whisper his name, or to avoid his name all together. And during the Glacier View activity, discrediting Desmond Ford would have been easier if someone could provide even a shred of evidence that he collaborated with Brinsmead. For some, accusations were enough. "Report, and we will report it." Unwarranted reactivity was part of the emotional overlay of the times, and no attributions are really possible except anecdotally. Who would admit to being afraid of a man's name forty years ago? Who would do that? Doug0531 11:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to reorganize the article so that the material is not repeated twice in two "biography" sections. I have also deleted some clearly non-neutral statements, and added lots of "citation needed" and "disputable" statements. The ones I have added "disputable" to are for extraordinary claims - not necessarily incorrect in my assessment, but ones that certainly need a reference, like the ones about Ford being given messages that Brinsmead was chosen by God or something. Colin MacLaurin 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Raymond Cottrell quote in the "Emotional Gravity" section should be reframed or removed. Cottrell makes broad-brush claims that conclude, in a summary assertion, that Brinsmead's theological journey is evidence of "immaturity." I read that as an attack on his person. What Mr. Cottrell "cannot help but wonder" is not, to my mind, a useful way to describe Mr. Brinsmead. After all, this entry is an attempt to provide a relatively neutral and fact-based description of Mr. Brinsmead's life and teaching. Mr. Cottrell's claims are an evidence, not of what Brinsmead believed or taught, but of his own anxiety concerning Brinsmead's life and influence. As it stands, it reads like a personal attack. Doug0531 03:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Colin, I revised the section on reactivity. A clear focus on this subject is crucial to understanding this man and his message. I have not actually contributed any of the quotations in that section, but they seemed naturally joined to one another by the theme of leadership reactivity. I do appreciate whomever found these and brought them into this essay. "Church tension" is, to my mind, not adequately descriptive of the quotes. Tension is too weak a term for what happened back in the day, and in that sense it is somewhat misleading. Reactivity, a more accurate representation of this section's theme, is not a pejorative term, but a descriptive one. Brinsmead's legacy is clarified when the persistence and pervasiveness of leadership reactivity is clearly acknowledged. "Brinsmead was also antagonistic at times" is without attribution and is, in the context of this section, somewhat beside the point. Church leaders and members in those days easily dismissed the strident voices of other would-be reformers, in part because of their antagonistic spirit. Brinsmead stayed focused on theology and church history. He did not indulge in personal attacks. His dissent was certainly interpreted as disloyalty to the church. That conflation is one evidence of reactivity driven by an ideological posture toward one's own privileged belief system. This helps to explain why his impact was out of proportion to all other reform voices of his day, combined. Overall, he took himself much less seriously than did most of his antagonists. Desmond Ford was an exception. Excessive seriousness is the fertilizer of reactivity. Doug0531 ( talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The images were useful ones. Would the editor who added them please inform us where they took the images from? We may be able to use them in the article. For example, if the Avondale College one was a photo you took yourself, you can release it into the public domain and then use it in this article. The business award one may not be legitimately used here, however please say where you got it from, e.g. a website or something, and we will see what the copyright status is. Colin MacLaurin 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please help with the chronological order. I have tried to keep the text coherent and in order, but need to help of editors more knowledgeable about Brinsmead. Particularly, some of the "later views" tidbits (such as reading Luther) probably belong in the 1970s (evangelical) section. Also, when did he become involved in politics? Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
All references to studying Luther and Calvin belong in the 1970s section. Doug0531 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
From my read of the site, Qua Ngo seems to be a play on words, or an insiders comment. I am not aware that there is one official web site for Brinsmead's current thinking. This site's "Ekklesia" section is copyrighted by William Ferguson. Also, http://www.worldviewpublications.org, is published by Norman Jarnes. It contains extensive material that seems to deeply echo Mr. Brinsmead's current thinking. Little is attributed, however. Norman Jarnes was Editor of Present Truth/Verdict back in the day. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't help you here. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I helped build the library for Mr. Brinsmead's work in the 1970s. I do not know where it might be now. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the section that I believe Mr. Ferguson mostly wrote. I look to him (or others) to revise this. It is very important for the overall entry. I can help with style. I leave to others to provide content. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I shall take time over the next little while to expand and clarify material in the 1970s section. Consider this a work in progress. I encourage William Ferguson to apply his skill and knowledge to areas of his expertise in the Current Beliefs section. Mr. Ferguson may also be aware of other Internet sites that can be used for reference and research, and I and certainly others would appreciate learning about them. I welcome Mr. Ferguson's contributions. Doug0531 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I just read the website about the compiled emails regarding Valorie's passing, which I notice also has a lot of other details which were incorporated into this page. Brinsmead's niece provided the information. There are many statements there which need a better reference - presumably she is not considered a notable authority (other than being his niece, of course). Editors with a "Deletionist" philosophy would probably reject all this information, but I would be content for now with putting a "According to Brinsmead's niece, ..." ahead of some of the large claims made, e.g. Ford being inspired about Brinsmead. It is not a great source, and hopefully someone will read the BRI resources or anything else with more notability and cite that stuff. Colin MacLaurin 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
William Ferguson, I recently tried to e-mail you at quango at wavefront dot com, and it bounced. In part I wrote, "It is clear from what you have written that Mr. Brinsmead has had a substantial impact on your own life and thinking, since at least the mid-1990s. I do hope that you would consider strengthening and clarifying the Wikipedia entry. I have no vested interest in this process, other than to strengthen that portion of the narrative for which I have knowledge." I regard your knowledge of Mr. Brinsmead's current thinking as important to this project. I sincerely encourage your active participation in rounding out this entry. Doug0531 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Check out this content guideline: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Says sources should be reliable third-party sources, from good authorities, etc. Colin MacLaurin 07:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been harping on about Wikipedia:No original research a lot, but what I was really thinking of was:
Please have a quick read. By the way, this Brinsmead article and the dynamics of its creation/progress are fascinating. Colin MacLaurin 07:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The following critical site has a good list of links for Brinsmead and various other Adventist figures: http://www.btinternet.com/~fountain/sda/. Colin MacLaurin 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Quango website does indeed seem to act as a repository for Brinsmead's writings. Wmferguson, are you the only contributor, or are there others. A very brief description (like 8 words or so) of the site's POV (point of view) in the external links section in the article would assist readers. Colin MacLaurin 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This material does not have a good citation, and hence is not easily verifiable. This should have been done long ago, and there is still more material that should also be moved. Colin MacLaurin 15:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
According to friends of Brinsmead, the week prior to Robert being dismissed from Avondale, Desmond Ford, then a theology professor, said he was sitting on the platform ready to take the Sabbath (Saturday) church service at Avondale, "when a voice directed him to look at Brinsmead" [1] The voice said to Ford, "this young man is my chosen vessel", [1] although Ford fought this conviction for many years. Ford later spent time in Brinsmead's extended family during the months when Ford's wife was dying of cancer. Ford had many hours of dialogue with Brinsmead and eventually joined forces with Brinsmead in delivering the gospel to Adventists in the 1980s. citation needed
According to Ford's wife Gill,
This quote by Raymond Cottrell is not fitting for a biography of a living peron:
This material has no references ( Wikipedia:Verifiability):
date=December 2007 date=August 2007 Template:Trim A major theological change was regarding the divinity of Jesus. Brinsmead came to believe that the Jesus born of a virgin, by divine celestial impregnation, was merely a Greco-Roman heroic overlay of the Jewish man's history. He claims the virgin birth was unknown to Jesus' followers. Mithra, Caesar, and others were also attributed such circumstances of birth in their time, as was the historic custom of writers of that time. You might say that the superheros of that time were expected to wear their capes. Joseph Campbell calls this phenomenon "the Hero with a thousand faces". Yet the story of the Jesus of History is so compelling a story, so unique in its place in time, it can only be genuine. The reality of Christian teaching is that it is not built just built upon the words of Jesus, but also on the words and opinions of the Apostle Paul and writings attributed to Paul along with the thoughts and interpretations of early Church Fathers and scribes.
Brinsmead sees the salvation story of Jesus in a new light. It's not one of an incarnated God giving himself to die for the sins of mankind (hence the requirement for the incarnational theology and the incomprehensible baggage of the trinity - to retain the claim of monotheism). As a result, Brinsmead moved toward a Unitarian position on the Deity. When asked if he believed that Jesus was the son of God, Brinsmead replied "only in the sense that you and I and every human are the sons of God and the incarnate expression of God in this physical world". citation needed
According to Brinsmead, citation needed the story of Jesus is that of a man God loved who was the first fully human man—A man not motivated by revenge and payback justice (If Jesus taught to turn the other cheek would not also the Father teach and practice that?) citation needed Brinsmead characterizes the teaching of Jesus as a message about "the scandalous generosity" that is our inheritance as the children of God that includes a relationship with an " Abba" (literally "daddy") Father. There was no fall from God. Where can we go where God is not? Death did not enter the world through Adam, dinosaurs were ripping flesh from limb and bone long before Adam and Eve. There was no perfect past paradise we lost. We are given everything we need, and God's forgiveness and compassion and generosity are beyond our comprehension. We come from God, we return to God, and our sole requirement of life, is as Jesus said of his followers "That they love one another". citation needed In this sense of God and Jesus, Brinsmead and Michael Morwood find a high degree of resonance. It's a straight on theology with the maker of all things. citation needed
Brinsmead increasingly saw the message of Jesus in terms of serving humans, and that there was no such thing as "loving God" in the abstract. All we know about love, expressing love, giving love, comes from the human contacts we have made. None of us have seen God. None of have talked face to face with God. Yet humans insist arrogantly that we love God through abstractions of ritual and dogma. Brinsmead posits that humans only show love towards God when humans show love towards each other. Jesus was conflating the two great laws (which even the Pharisees understood) yet they thought they could love God before humans.
Brinsmead argues. Brinsmead believes religion gets it wrong when it puts loving God at a higher priority than loving humans. "It is impossible to love God in the abstract!", citation needed Brinsmead is well known for saying.
Brinsmead's current research interests are the similarities between environmental Global Warming apocalyptic thinking and the apocalyptic thinking of Christendom. In religion, God strikes back at a fallen sinful mankind, in deep ecology global warming rhetoric, nature strikes back at her disrespectful child.
Both viewpoints long for a long lost paradise that never existed. Nature has become the new God. Particularly disturbing to Brinsmead is the deep ecology thinking of Arne Næss who views that mankind has no more right to this planet than mosquitoes. He views this new environmental apocalyptic thinking as a mutated meme of Christian apocalyptic thought and that both are antagonistic to human needs.
Brinsmead remains an unabashed free enterprise proponent and sees mankind as the pinnacle of this earth's biological development, echoing the progressive element of Modernism. He does not believe applying totalitarian governmental principles or taxes to the environment will work any better at protecting it than it did for Russia and China, who already have the most appalling environmental records. citation needed Brinsmead, like most Christians, does believe in the wise stewardship of the creation and its resources. He makes his living as a horticulturist on a farm with over 500 species of tropical fruit trees. citation needed Brinsmead sees the current witch hunt attitude towards global warming skeptics having much in common with the heresy hunts of religion. dubious – discuss Such hunts are never about arriving at truth, they are about protecting dogma and those who teach dogma. Brinsmead has toppled his own dogmas (much to consternation of those who want pidgeon hole him) on several occasions when he felt it no longer represented what he felt was true. Life and understanding, he feels, is a journey. Environmental science should be as brave.
Brinsmead believes we do not live in a zero sum game when it comes to the environment or the economy. He believes science needs to be used where possible to determine truth. God has already given us everything we need - but its often up to us to figure out how to use what has been given. That is the God given role of mankind on the planet. To do what nature could never do for itself. Modern research into nanotechnology points to new ways to use limited resources. Research into zero-point energy by physics seems to indicate that we are literally swimming in a sea of energy - without the use of fossil fuels - if we can figure out how to harness it.
This should have been done long ago: Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Avondale
Brinsmead studied under Dr. Burns, then head of theology, and according to friends of Brinsmead, he was leading a great interest in spiritual things among his fellow students.
[1]
citation needed The college was in full revival mode with room meetings until midnight on many nights.
citation needed There was such a ground swell among students the church leadership began to take notice of Brinsmead.
citation needed
According to friends of Brinsmead, in his final months of school he wrote a book which a relative published against his wishes and knowledge. [1] The book ended by quoting a Bible prophecy that the abomination would enter the Holy Land. citation needed Adventist church leadership took this to mean that Bob was teaching that "the abomination that maketh desolate" citation needed was in the church. According to friends of Brinsmead, this book was influential in his dismissal from Avondale: that he was denied graduation from Avondale, although he did receive his BA in theology. citation needed
Evangelical era
He was a prolific writer and public speaker in the United States (and occasionally
Europe) throughout the 1970s, engaging a variety of interested lay and professional audiences.
citation needed
This helps to explain why readership expanded remarkably from 1972 levels. citation needed In 1976 Brinsmead claimed that his magazine, Present Truth had a readership of 100,000. citation needed Typically, 45,000 to 70,000 copies were printed for circulation. citation needed The issue dedicated to Righteousness by Faith realized a circulation of over one million copies. citation needed
In the early 1970s Brinsmead contacted Neal C. Wilson and other General Conference leaders seeking theological rapprochement, to no avail. dubious – discuss
"Brinsmead first published the magazine Present Truth in April 1972." I removed this uncited comment since it disagrees with the published source by Gary Land, who says it was started in 1968 but aimed at a more general audience in the 1970s after he gave up perfectionism.
This might explain it: one entry called "Present truth" in the library catalogue worldcat.org says it was published "Snohomish, Wash. : International Health Institute, 196?-1971." Also "Vol. 4, no. 4 (Nov. 7, 1970)... Edited by Norman Jarnes."
This may solve the discrepancy. It appears Brinsmead changed publishers in 1972 to one in Fallbrook, California. Perhaps the volume numbering restarted. Essentially a new magazine, with a different perspective(?) See the article Present Truth Magazine I've started, and please contribute to it, with verifiable comments. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
References
ValEmails
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Is this article by Brinsmead? If so, it contradicts a few facts in the article. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 10:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Which sort of "liberal" was Brinsmead in the 1980s? I have called the decade "Liberal era" after Pahl's comment, "Brinsmead's scholarship turned, some would say, liberal." [3] Does this mean liberal Christian or liberal Adventist? Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Brinsmead himself emailed me and told me his birthdate is "August 9, 1933". He also said that last time he read this article, the year and month of his birth were both wrong. Gary Land's article also says 1933. I have changed the dates. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 04:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Brinsmead and his niece are working on their own account of his experiences, an editor told me. When it is available, we can cite things like exact birth date from it. Anything likely to be challenged we need to precede with a "In Brinsmead's view..." etc. A source like this should not be the major source for the article. It is a primary source, not neutral or independent, and probably will be self-published. See the policies. Yet used properly minimally, it will be a welcome improvement for the article. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 10:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Thank-you to the two users who made substantial recent edits. The material is quite helpful overall, however I would like to point you to some Wikipedia policies which describe important improvements. Please write in a neutral point of view (see the policy WP:NPOV), and provide citations from respected sources, which is particularly important for controversial-sounding statements (see WP:CITE). Statements such as "SDA leadership was so frightened of him in his final year of college that they chose to deny him his diploma and disfellowship him..." do not use neutral language, and a disputable-sounding statement such as this one needs a good reference.
On another note, a statement which got deleted read, "Robert left in 1957 due to theological controversy. He never returned there to complete his formal education." If the 1957 date is accurate, the article would benefit by having it reinserted, preferably with a citation.
On a more personal note (and now I'm bending the policies a little...), Bob's journey through life is a fascinating one, and I'm sure you're both very interested for one reason or another. I think I saw him at Avondale College in 2006, but I didn't really know who he was at the time. Colin MacLaurin 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, please write only a brief summary in the introductions, with successive levels of expansion afterward ( Wikipedia:Summary style may be the policy on this). Colin MacLaurin 18:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Colin, for your response. I did a lot of research and other tasks for Robert Brinsmead between 1975 and 1979. My name is on the masthead of Present Truth/Verdict from September 1976 until August 1979, first as Research Director and then Research Consultant. That portion of this effort for which I have much first-hand knowledge I have written or edited to be concise, reasonably objective, and with a more neutral posture toward what is claimed. Much of two sections, on the 1960s and the 1970s, is my contribution (and I freely acknowledge it needs expansion).
I did the research for "1844 Re-examined." Brinsmead didn't simply "reject the investigative judgment," as is currently stated (someone changed what I wrote). I am not overstating when I wrote that he systematically dismantled the theological rationale for the denomination's claim to its unique calling. The "Investigative Judgment" entry notes 1844 Re-examined," but it does not socially locate it, nor did it attempt to respond theologically. It was not a peripheral document in its day, though denominational authority tended to avoid its place and presence in the conflict that came to a head at Glacier View.
The statement as it is now written is, of course, narrowly correct. But it vastly understates the impact of his thinking and influence in this matter. Taken together with the Glacier View travesty and Walter Rea's "The White Lie," many hundreds of ministers (I remember a number bandied around in those days - 2500 to 2700 - but I cannot verify that) and thousands of lay people left the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I believe the ministers in Australia who left numbered in the hundreds. I did not follow these matters much after 1982, so I cannot comment on events after that.
From what I can gather, it seems that William Ferguson (and perhaps others) have constructed the major narrative to date on Brinsmead's current beliefs. The "voice" of this portion is much too uncritical, and to my thinking it is much too promotional. There are some sweeping generalizations that seem unwarranted. "Environmental science should be as brave" comes across as smarmy scolding for environmental science's assumed fundamentalist bent (the narrative uncritically infers that environmental science is a monolith -- someone in that field will read this some day and wryly smile before moving on). Also, some of the narrative reads like an insider's comments for other insiders. Referring to Robert Brinsmead as Bob is a case in point. And whether or not Jack Zwemer (I corrected Zwemer -- Someone spelled his name with two m's) has ironically captured some element of Mr. Brinsmead's current thinking ("Brinsmead remains unsure whether this is a compliment from Jack or not") sounds too insider-ish. Further, with reference to the purpose of this overall entry, the claim is somewhat beside the point, even if it can be attributed. I have not made much effort to edit this section. I would rather that be done by those who are its architects.
I am not particularly well versed in how to edit Wikipedia entries, and I do appreciate every effort of yours to make this entry flow well. And I would be most interested in hearing from William Ferguson. I am pleased to be part of something that clarifies Mr. Brinsmead's past and present thinking. Doug0531 03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Doug, thanks for your willingness and openness to engage in discussion on the talk page - that's an important sign of a good editor. I have added welcome messages to your and Wmferguson's talk pages, which list a few helpful guidelines. Apparently you are very well informed about Robert Brinsmead; hence, it's great to have your contributions. However that does lead to another policy: Wikipedia:No original research. One paragraph entitled "Citing oneself" currently states,
It is the more controversial statements or those which sound more dubious which particularly need to be cited. There is currently a lot of such "original research" in the article.
I am not precisely sure about how you see the Original Research guideline fitting into what I have contributed thus far. So, permit me to tighten things up a bit, and then feel free to adjust as necessary.
Concerning "1844 Re-Examined": I spent three months gathering all of the materials for what came to be "1844 Re-examined." I did this with no thought to an outcome. As I remember the event in 1979 (here's a bit of trivia, simply FYI), two eight-foot long folding tables were set end-to-end in a conference room in the Fallbrook CA office. I arranged the material in sequence, according to content, extending in one direction for sixteen feet, and then I rounded the end of the table and laid out the rest on the other side, again for sixteen feet. Then I set a chair for Mr. Brinsmead at the beginning. He read and made notes, moving his chair from stack to stack. The writing and conclusions are his, not mine. The mechanics of how this process occurred is not important for the article. I include it here only FYI.
Also, I made a claim in the 1970s section that the interests of PT/Verdict gradually expanded into areas of theology and biblical studies that moved beyond SDA concerns. By that I meant, say, the issues on the covenantal structure of the Hebrew Scriptures (PT, late 1976), as well as the eschatological nature of the NT gospel vis a vis the historical structure of the OT. I never remembered SDA back then to engage scripture for much other than apologetics to buttress SDA distinctives. Perhaps this or that theologian did, but at its heart the denomination did not. That was my point. Is there perhaps a simpler way to say that? Doug0531 02:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
For example, my quote from Schwarz in the opening sentences. It was not presented as absolute truth, but rather "Schwarz said..." or similar. Schwarz is a respected authority on Adventist history, so he was a good one to quote. Of course, often there will be different significant opinions from different notable authorities, so just include all the major points of view and in proportion. ( WP:NPOV) - Colin MacLaurin
Regarding PT/Verdict moving beyond "parochial" Adventist concerns. I made some changes, because the word "parochial" for example can have a non-neutral connotation of "old fashioned" or "outdated" or similar (I am not assuming you necessarily meant it this way). A refinement would be to say, "expanded into areas not often examined by scholars of the time", however this would certainly need a good reference. If PT claims this, I would make a comment in the article, "PT claimed...", because it is not an independent reference.
Doug0531 said,
You basically want to say that it was a major document. This would be a helpful and informative comment. However the article cannot claim that 1844 Re-Examined, "systematically dismantled the theological rationale...", because many notable sources (e.g. the ATS, BRI) would disagree. Much research went into it, but this is not a helpful statement either. Wikipedia is not about so-called "truth", but rather what various different experts have considered to be "truth". Find a (preferably independent) published reference by a reputable person who commented on the impact it had in the church. I think this is a better way - comment on what effects it precipitated. Perhaps you could quote somebody as saying (in their opinion) it was well argued.
You mentioned the investigative judgment article for example doesn't do justice to this. Please, be bold and improve that article! Colin MacLaurin 11:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I meant parochial as a descriptor, not as a perjorative. I don't mind that you say it another way, so as to avoid an unwarranted negative connotation. And concerning my comments on dismantling, and your reply to them, it is possible that you simply missed that I have already further adjusted that brief section.
My expanded comments in "talk" are not intended for inclusion into the main body, but merely to provide background. And, fret not thyself that I am in this to promote "truth." The Wikipedia medium is useful up to a point, but only so, because narratives and events from thirty years ago are, by definition, filtered through personal and social history and retrospective impressions (i.e. filters) of recall. Be that as it may, I think I found a way to say something that is accurate and doesn't overstate for the purposes of this entry. Your comments on my recent redactions are welcome.
Colin, in no way to I mean to diminish anything of your effort. Really, you impress me as a good thinker. You had to live through those years to somewhat understand the paranoia. To some Brinsmead was the risk of smallpox on a free blanket. I remember in 1966, at Atlantic Union College (Herbert Douglas was President of AUC then), being admonished to only whisper his name, or to avoid his name all together. And during the Glacier View activity, discrediting Desmond Ford would have been easier if someone could provide even a shred of evidence that he collaborated with Brinsmead. For some, accusations were enough. "Report, and we will report it." Unwarranted reactivity was part of the emotional overlay of the times, and no attributions are really possible except anecdotally. Who would admit to being afraid of a man's name forty years ago? Who would do that? Doug0531 11:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to reorganize the article so that the material is not repeated twice in two "biography" sections. I have also deleted some clearly non-neutral statements, and added lots of "citation needed" and "disputable" statements. The ones I have added "disputable" to are for extraordinary claims - not necessarily incorrect in my assessment, but ones that certainly need a reference, like the ones about Ford being given messages that Brinsmead was chosen by God or something. Colin MacLaurin 15:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe the Raymond Cottrell quote in the "Emotional Gravity" section should be reframed or removed. Cottrell makes broad-brush claims that conclude, in a summary assertion, that Brinsmead's theological journey is evidence of "immaturity." I read that as an attack on his person. What Mr. Cottrell "cannot help but wonder" is not, to my mind, a useful way to describe Mr. Brinsmead. After all, this entry is an attempt to provide a relatively neutral and fact-based description of Mr. Brinsmead's life and teaching. Mr. Cottrell's claims are an evidence, not of what Brinsmead believed or taught, but of his own anxiety concerning Brinsmead's life and influence. As it stands, it reads like a personal attack. Doug0531 03:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Colin, I revised the section on reactivity. A clear focus on this subject is crucial to understanding this man and his message. I have not actually contributed any of the quotations in that section, but they seemed naturally joined to one another by the theme of leadership reactivity. I do appreciate whomever found these and brought them into this essay. "Church tension" is, to my mind, not adequately descriptive of the quotes. Tension is too weak a term for what happened back in the day, and in that sense it is somewhat misleading. Reactivity, a more accurate representation of this section's theme, is not a pejorative term, but a descriptive one. Brinsmead's legacy is clarified when the persistence and pervasiveness of leadership reactivity is clearly acknowledged. "Brinsmead was also antagonistic at times" is without attribution and is, in the context of this section, somewhat beside the point. Church leaders and members in those days easily dismissed the strident voices of other would-be reformers, in part because of their antagonistic spirit. Brinsmead stayed focused on theology and church history. He did not indulge in personal attacks. His dissent was certainly interpreted as disloyalty to the church. That conflation is one evidence of reactivity driven by an ideological posture toward one's own privileged belief system. This helps to explain why his impact was out of proportion to all other reform voices of his day, combined. Overall, he took himself much less seriously than did most of his antagonists. Desmond Ford was an exception. Excessive seriousness is the fertilizer of reactivity. Doug0531 ( talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The images were useful ones. Would the editor who added them please inform us where they took the images from? We may be able to use them in the article. For example, if the Avondale College one was a photo you took yourself, you can release it into the public domain and then use it in this article. The business award one may not be legitimately used here, however please say where you got it from, e.g. a website or something, and we will see what the copyright status is. Colin MacLaurin 14:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Please help with the chronological order. I have tried to keep the text coherent and in order, but need to help of editors more knowledgeable about Brinsmead. Particularly, some of the "later views" tidbits (such as reading Luther) probably belong in the 1970s (evangelical) section. Also, when did he become involved in politics? Colin MacLaurin 18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
All references to studying Luther and Calvin belong in the 1970s section. Doug0531 01:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
From my read of the site, Qua Ngo seems to be a play on words, or an insiders comment. I am not aware that there is one official web site for Brinsmead's current thinking. This site's "Ekklesia" section is copyrighted by William Ferguson. Also, http://www.worldviewpublications.org, is published by Norman Jarnes. It contains extensive material that seems to deeply echo Mr. Brinsmead's current thinking. Little is attributed, however. Norman Jarnes was Editor of Present Truth/Verdict back in the day. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't help you here. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I helped build the library for Mr. Brinsmead's work in the 1970s. I do not know where it might be now. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This is the section that I believe Mr. Ferguson mostly wrote. I look to him (or others) to revise this. It is very important for the overall entry. I can help with style. I leave to others to provide content. Doug0531 01:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I shall take time over the next little while to expand and clarify material in the 1970s section. Consider this a work in progress. I encourage William Ferguson to apply his skill and knowledge to areas of his expertise in the Current Beliefs section. Mr. Ferguson may also be aware of other Internet sites that can be used for reference and research, and I and certainly others would appreciate learning about them. I welcome Mr. Ferguson's contributions. Doug0531 04:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I just read the website about the compiled emails regarding Valorie's passing, which I notice also has a lot of other details which were incorporated into this page. Brinsmead's niece provided the information. There are many statements there which need a better reference - presumably she is not considered a notable authority (other than being his niece, of course). Editors with a "Deletionist" philosophy would probably reject all this information, but I would be content for now with putting a "According to Brinsmead's niece, ..." ahead of some of the large claims made, e.g. Ford being inspired about Brinsmead. It is not a great source, and hopefully someone will read the BRI resources or anything else with more notability and cite that stuff. Colin MacLaurin 13:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
William Ferguson, I recently tried to e-mail you at quango at wavefront dot com, and it bounced. In part I wrote, "It is clear from what you have written that Mr. Brinsmead has had a substantial impact on your own life and thinking, since at least the mid-1990s. I do hope that you would consider strengthening and clarifying the Wikipedia entry. I have no vested interest in this process, other than to strengthen that portion of the narrative for which I have knowledge." I regard your knowledge of Mr. Brinsmead's current thinking as important to this project. I sincerely encourage your active participation in rounding out this entry. Doug0531 12:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Check out this content guideline: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Says sources should be reliable third-party sources, from good authorities, etc. Colin MacLaurin 07:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been harping on about Wikipedia:No original research a lot, but what I was really thinking of was:
Please have a quick read. By the way, this Brinsmead article and the dynamics of its creation/progress are fascinating. Colin MacLaurin 07:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The following critical site has a good list of links for Brinsmead and various other Adventist figures: http://www.btinternet.com/~fountain/sda/. Colin MacLaurin 00:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The Quango website does indeed seem to act as a repository for Brinsmead's writings. Wmferguson, are you the only contributor, or are there others. A very brief description (like 8 words or so) of the site's POV (point of view) in the external links section in the article would assist readers. Colin MacLaurin 07:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This material does not have a good citation, and hence is not easily verifiable. This should have been done long ago, and there is still more material that should also be moved. Colin MacLaurin 15:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
According to friends of Brinsmead, the week prior to Robert being dismissed from Avondale, Desmond Ford, then a theology professor, said he was sitting on the platform ready to take the Sabbath (Saturday) church service at Avondale, "when a voice directed him to look at Brinsmead" [1] The voice said to Ford, "this young man is my chosen vessel", [1] although Ford fought this conviction for many years. Ford later spent time in Brinsmead's extended family during the months when Ford's wife was dying of cancer. Ford had many hours of dialogue with Brinsmead and eventually joined forces with Brinsmead in delivering the gospel to Adventists in the 1980s. citation needed
According to Ford's wife Gill,
This quote by Raymond Cottrell is not fitting for a biography of a living peron:
This material has no references ( Wikipedia:Verifiability):
date=December 2007 date=August 2007 Template:Trim A major theological change was regarding the divinity of Jesus. Brinsmead came to believe that the Jesus born of a virgin, by divine celestial impregnation, was merely a Greco-Roman heroic overlay of the Jewish man's history. He claims the virgin birth was unknown to Jesus' followers. Mithra, Caesar, and others were also attributed such circumstances of birth in their time, as was the historic custom of writers of that time. You might say that the superheros of that time were expected to wear their capes. Joseph Campbell calls this phenomenon "the Hero with a thousand faces". Yet the story of the Jesus of History is so compelling a story, so unique in its place in time, it can only be genuine. The reality of Christian teaching is that it is not built just built upon the words of Jesus, but also on the words and opinions of the Apostle Paul and writings attributed to Paul along with the thoughts and interpretations of early Church Fathers and scribes.
Brinsmead sees the salvation story of Jesus in a new light. It's not one of an incarnated God giving himself to die for the sins of mankind (hence the requirement for the incarnational theology and the incomprehensible baggage of the trinity - to retain the claim of monotheism). As a result, Brinsmead moved toward a Unitarian position on the Deity. When asked if he believed that Jesus was the son of God, Brinsmead replied "only in the sense that you and I and every human are the sons of God and the incarnate expression of God in this physical world". citation needed
According to Brinsmead, citation needed the story of Jesus is that of a man God loved who was the first fully human man—A man not motivated by revenge and payback justice (If Jesus taught to turn the other cheek would not also the Father teach and practice that?) citation needed Brinsmead characterizes the teaching of Jesus as a message about "the scandalous generosity" that is our inheritance as the children of God that includes a relationship with an " Abba" (literally "daddy") Father. There was no fall from God. Where can we go where God is not? Death did not enter the world through Adam, dinosaurs were ripping flesh from limb and bone long before Adam and Eve. There was no perfect past paradise we lost. We are given everything we need, and God's forgiveness and compassion and generosity are beyond our comprehension. We come from God, we return to God, and our sole requirement of life, is as Jesus said of his followers "That they love one another". citation needed In this sense of God and Jesus, Brinsmead and Michael Morwood find a high degree of resonance. It's a straight on theology with the maker of all things. citation needed
Brinsmead increasingly saw the message of Jesus in terms of serving humans, and that there was no such thing as "loving God" in the abstract. All we know about love, expressing love, giving love, comes from the human contacts we have made. None of us have seen God. None of have talked face to face with God. Yet humans insist arrogantly that we love God through abstractions of ritual and dogma. Brinsmead posits that humans only show love towards God when humans show love towards each other. Jesus was conflating the two great laws (which even the Pharisees understood) yet they thought they could love God before humans.
Brinsmead argues. Brinsmead believes religion gets it wrong when it puts loving God at a higher priority than loving humans. "It is impossible to love God in the abstract!", citation needed Brinsmead is well known for saying.
Brinsmead's current research interests are the similarities between environmental Global Warming apocalyptic thinking and the apocalyptic thinking of Christendom. In religion, God strikes back at a fallen sinful mankind, in deep ecology global warming rhetoric, nature strikes back at her disrespectful child.
Both viewpoints long for a long lost paradise that never existed. Nature has become the new God. Particularly disturbing to Brinsmead is the deep ecology thinking of Arne Næss who views that mankind has no more right to this planet than mosquitoes. He views this new environmental apocalyptic thinking as a mutated meme of Christian apocalyptic thought and that both are antagonistic to human needs.
Brinsmead remains an unabashed free enterprise proponent and sees mankind as the pinnacle of this earth's biological development, echoing the progressive element of Modernism. He does not believe applying totalitarian governmental principles or taxes to the environment will work any better at protecting it than it did for Russia and China, who already have the most appalling environmental records. citation needed Brinsmead, like most Christians, does believe in the wise stewardship of the creation and its resources. He makes his living as a horticulturist on a farm with over 500 species of tropical fruit trees. citation needed Brinsmead sees the current witch hunt attitude towards global warming skeptics having much in common with the heresy hunts of religion. dubious – discuss Such hunts are never about arriving at truth, they are about protecting dogma and those who teach dogma. Brinsmead has toppled his own dogmas (much to consternation of those who want pidgeon hole him) on several occasions when he felt it no longer represented what he felt was true. Life and understanding, he feels, is a journey. Environmental science should be as brave.
Brinsmead believes we do not live in a zero sum game when it comes to the environment or the economy. He believes science needs to be used where possible to determine truth. God has already given us everything we need - but its often up to us to figure out how to use what has been given. That is the God given role of mankind on the planet. To do what nature could never do for itself. Modern research into nanotechnology points to new ways to use limited resources. Research into zero-point energy by physics seems to indicate that we are literally swimming in a sea of energy - without the use of fossil fuels - if we can figure out how to harness it.
This should have been done long ago: Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 13:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Avondale
Brinsmead studied under Dr. Burns, then head of theology, and according to friends of Brinsmead, he was leading a great interest in spiritual things among his fellow students.
[1]
citation needed The college was in full revival mode with room meetings until midnight on many nights.
citation needed There was such a ground swell among students the church leadership began to take notice of Brinsmead.
citation needed
According to friends of Brinsmead, in his final months of school he wrote a book which a relative published against his wishes and knowledge. [1] The book ended by quoting a Bible prophecy that the abomination would enter the Holy Land. citation needed Adventist church leadership took this to mean that Bob was teaching that "the abomination that maketh desolate" citation needed was in the church. According to friends of Brinsmead, this book was influential in his dismissal from Avondale: that he was denied graduation from Avondale, although he did receive his BA in theology. citation needed
Evangelical era
He was a prolific writer and public speaker in the United States (and occasionally
Europe) throughout the 1970s, engaging a variety of interested lay and professional audiences.
citation needed
This helps to explain why readership expanded remarkably from 1972 levels. citation needed In 1976 Brinsmead claimed that his magazine, Present Truth had a readership of 100,000. citation needed Typically, 45,000 to 70,000 copies were printed for circulation. citation needed The issue dedicated to Righteousness by Faith realized a circulation of over one million copies. citation needed
In the early 1970s Brinsmead contacted Neal C. Wilson and other General Conference leaders seeking theological rapprochement, to no avail. dubious – discuss
"Brinsmead first published the magazine Present Truth in April 1972." I removed this uncited comment since it disagrees with the published source by Gary Land, who says it was started in 1968 but aimed at a more general audience in the 1970s after he gave up perfectionism.
This might explain it: one entry called "Present truth" in the library catalogue worldcat.org says it was published "Snohomish, Wash. : International Health Institute, 196?-1971." Also "Vol. 4, no. 4 (Nov. 7, 1970)... Edited by Norman Jarnes."
This may solve the discrepancy. It appears Brinsmead changed publishers in 1972 to one in Fallbrook, California. Perhaps the volume numbering restarted. Essentially a new magazine, with a different perspective(?) See the article Present Truth Magazine I've started, and please contribute to it, with verifiable comments. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
References
ValEmails
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Is this article by Brinsmead? If so, it contradicts a few facts in the article. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 10:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Which sort of "liberal" was Brinsmead in the 1980s? I have called the decade "Liberal era" after Pahl's comment, "Brinsmead's scholarship turned, some would say, liberal." [3] Does this mean liberal Christian or liberal Adventist? Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 12:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Brinsmead himself emailed me and told me his birthdate is "August 9, 1933". He also said that last time he read this article, the year and month of his birth were both wrong. Gary Land's article also says 1933. I have changed the dates. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 04:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Brinsmead and his niece are working on their own account of his experiences, an editor told me. When it is available, we can cite things like exact birth date from it. Anything likely to be challenged we need to precede with a "In Brinsmead's view..." etc. A source like this should not be the major source for the article. It is a primary source, not neutral or independent, and probably will be self-published. See the policies. Yet used properly minimally, it will be a welcome improvement for the article. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 10:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)