Talk:Le Roy Froom

Spelling of name

I notice that there is some confusion amongst Wikipedia articles as to the spelling of Froom's given name. I just checked the Seventh-day Adventist Encyclopedia, and his name is spelt "Le Roy", as here. (I have seen others spell it "LeRoy", which is presumably incorrect). Just thought I'd clarify what an authoritative source says. Colin MacLaurin 06:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly reception of Prophetic Faith

Good job User:Taiwan boi in writing the section on the scholars' reception of Froom's book Prophetic Faith of our Fathers. It was neutral, and apparently from some of the most reliable sources, per Wikipedia standards. Good job! Colin MacLaurin (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I have a large collection of theological journals (about two dozen), and PFOOF receives very high mention in a number of reviews, including the very recent review by Couch. I was interested in doing this as there has been some discussion as to whether or not PFOOF is a reliable source. It is certainly a reliable source, and treated as such in the scholarly literature. Although frequently criticized for its narrow focus, its accuracy and honest presentation of its sources has never been impugned. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Qualifications

What formal education does this man have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.34.143 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet found a statement of his degrees, but did find this site where Froom is addressed as Dr. Froom by his contemporarites. http://www.adventistalert.com/sda.ev/sda.ev.htm -Allenroyboy (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

With no verifiable qualifications, should we consider him a valid source for Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.34.143 (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You got to be kidding, right? This man's exhaustive work, the 4 vol of Prophetic faith of our fathers (2000+ pages), 2 vol of Conditionalist faith of our fathers (1000+ pages), and editor of Questions on Doctrine (500+ pages) (plus dozens of other books and articles), all of which have received positive scholarly critical review for more than 50 years, should itself show his qualification. He has been recognized as a qualified scholar for more decades than you have been alive. The man certainly had a BA, MA, and PhD, but just because it has not yet been added to this particular article is hardly reason to disqualify him as a valid source. You are really, really reaching on this. (oh. and you should learn how to sign your posts) -Allenroyboy (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the man died many years ago, it is unlikely that anything about his education will be on-line. I did find this however: "He began his career as a pastor and then trained to be an editor at Pacific Press Publishing Association. He subsequently served as editor of the Chinese Signs of the Times, Watchman, and Ministry, the latter a magazine he started and edited. ... In addition to his work at the General Conference, Froom also taught historical theology at the Theological Seminary at Andrews University." You don't work as a SDA pastor and then teach in the seminary without the proper education to back it up. -Allenroyboy (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Please document his education. Without documentation of qualification from an accredited institution, he's just some guy who typed a bunch of pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.34.143 (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Move request

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Le Roy Froom → Prophetic Faith of our Fathers – This article has six paragraphs on the book, Prophetic Faith of our Fathers and only one paragraph on the author. As such, it makes more sense to have an article about the book with a paragraph on the author than to have a seven paragraph article on the author with six paragraphs on just one of his works. 75.192.235.107 (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I think it should be kept as it. Froom wrote far more than just PFoF, thought it is the most well known. Rather than moving and renaming it, it should be expanded. CedricElijahHenry (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Ditto, same reasons. (Also check the IP's contribs for another page move proposal) In ictu oculi (talk) 05:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Froom's contribution

Here is a quote from the article Counter-reformation "Forced to self-justify their position by unflattering prophetic figures and epithets utilized by Protestant Bible scholars of the Papacy, the Jesuits resorted to two counter-interpretations of these selfsame prophecies, Futurism and Preterism." Froom is given as the source of this information in Prophetic Faith of our Fathers (1950).

However, futurism is described in Wikipedia as "... an artistic and social movement that originated in Italy in the early 20th century. It emphasized and glorified themes associated with contemporary concepts of the future, including speed, technology, youth and violence, and objects such as the car, the aeroplane and the industrial city. It was largely an Italian phenomenon, though there were parallel movements in Russia, England and elsewhere. The Futurists practiced in every medium of art, including painting, sculpture, ceramics, graphic design, industrial design, interior design, urban design, theatre, film, fashion, textiles, literature, music, architecture and even gastronomy..."

So there are two problems. Futurism 1) was not "discovered" til long after the Jesuits needed it. 2) Wikipedia's definition does not include anything about religion.

The Wikipedia article on preterism states that "One of the earliest references to preterism comes from Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263–339)." (an example is given)

So the problem here is not that the Jesuits didn't use it, but so did the early church. Much earlier.

When I inserted this observation by Froom in his article, they were reverted with the suggestion to "read Froom." Actually there is WP:BURDEN on the editor to demonstrate why two statements made by an apparently WP:RS which appear to be incorrect on their surface, are true. This can apparently be done easily by the editor who removed them, without an article reader having to "read Froom" in order to substantiate material originated by Froom, which appear to be false, if Wikipedia is to be believed. Student7 (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The original link to futurism in the Counter Reformation article was incorrect. I fixed it and it now links to the correct page, i.e., Futurism (Christianity) which is not about art, but about the Jesuit interpretation of the prophecies of the Bible. So this is no longer an issue.

About Futurism, the ideas developed by the Jesuits had its roots in early Christianity. But the idea was not called futurism until the time of the Jesuits. Now days, the earlier idea is labeled futurism because of how it was called later on. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 17:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Le Roy Froom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202055751/http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive01-05/3-4linden.pdf to http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive01-05/3-4linden.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)