A Logical
Refutation of Branham‘s Message
SECOND EDITION
Copyright © Nathan Rivera 2012
The right of Nathan Rivera to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with international copyright laws. The use of this eBook for commercial purposes would amount to copyright violations.
DEDICATED TO ALL WHO HAVE FOUND
THE COURAGE TO FACE THE TRUTH
Contents
Preface 6
Chapter 1: Fear is the Name of the Game 11
Chapter 2: Psychological Barriers that Get in the Way 19
Chapter 3: There Was No Cloud on Mt. Sunset 27
Chapter 4: Core Teachings of the Message Are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin 53
Chapter 5: Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone 73
Chapter 6: The Dark Side of the Message 94
Chapter 7: A Final Word; and What to Expect from Believers 106
Further Reading 116
Notes 117
Bibliography 120

6
Preface
I was raised in a family of Message believers. I would be amused, not offended, if you chose to describe me as the ‗black sheep‘ of the family; seeing as my parents and siblings are all Message believers. Several decades ago, my father was a great Message missionary. A sizeable chunk of my family‘s friends still subscribe to this religion – and as such it would be heartbreaking if this book came out as a spiteful attack on Message believers; or as a manifestation of much hatred of believers on my part. I do not hate Message believers, and I love dearly my friends who are still believers. It is Mr. Branham and his religion that this book is concerned with, and the author hopes that the readers will see it that way. What follows in the next few chapters is meant to help Message believers ask some very important questions about their beliefs.
Great minds have previously endeavored to demonstrate that religious belief is not based on the truth value of religious teachings, but rather on a prolonged process of mental conditioning. We do not even need great minds to come to terms with this obvious reality. It can be safely inferred - on purely empirical grounds - that people do not follow certain teachings because it can be shown that those teachings are true; rather they follow those teachings because they believe that they are true, whether or not they are. You‘ve probably heard of this kind of speculation in many forms - if Osama bin Laden happened to have been adopted as a child by Christian parents living in some tiny town in the southern United States, he most probably would have become a devout -and probably fundamentalist - Christian. If he had been brought up by Message-believing parents, he most probably would still be subscribing to Branham‘s religion. Most religious grown-ups subscribe to the religion of their parents. This clearly shows that people do not decide to follow a particular religion after objectively evaluating its claims; rather they follow the religion they were conditioned to follow since childhood. And there lies our problem.
The mental conditioning takes place from infancy and goes on to adulthood - and from there is entrenched in the mind; becoming almost impossible to remove. If this was not the reality, a simple treatise such as this would suffice as a consciousness-raiser to a majority of Message believers. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that many adherents will not bother to objectively cross-check what their religion tells them. The Muslim will not objectively investigate Muhammad‘s incredible claims; the Mormon and Latter-day Saint will not verify the historicity of narratives in the Book of Mormon, and so forth. Likewise, the Branhamite will not investigate Branham‘s claims. Any attempts at these kinds of explorations are deemed highly blasphemous; and fear itself is enough to preclude such initiatives. Closely allied to this situation is a tendency that is indeed interesting: people will often dismiss the credulity of the follower of a rival religion as stupidity, while giving special status to their own very similar credulity. The cow-worshipping Shaivist cannot for his life figure out how a billion people believe that an angel dictated the Qur‘an word for word to Prophet Muhammad. Go figure.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
7
As a result, it‘s almost a futile exercise to try and talk people out of what they believe in by proving that what they believe in is false, and it is why I am assured that this book will be very offensive to the Message believer, whether or not its contents are true. The very attempt of this book to prove Branham wrong (whether justified or not) is likely to send the Message believer into a frenzied anger – and therefore make it impossible for him or her to objectively consider the arguments contained here. How I wish you would choose to become an exception to this very predictable pattern.
As sad as these realities are, there is still the devout Message believer to whom the dubious nature of Branham‘s claims will be as clear as day once they come across certain facts about him and ministry. Then there is the quiet skeptic who already has some doubt in his heart but is filled with fear in his heart and has therefore come to a point of stagnation. (Fear has been known to inspire incredibly irrational standpoints, this one being a case in point: I have known of a former Message believer who at some point in his life had become an atheist; but still somehow would be filled with terror when speaking against Branham‘s teachings!) Then there is the individual who has already left the Message but is still unsure whether she did the right thing by walking away. It is for these three kinds of people that this work has been prepared.
Going through my collection of Message books, I find that the earliest transcribed sermon I have is Faith is the Substance, preached on the 12th of April, 1947. By the 1940s Branham was already peddling his doctrines, although they had not grown as controversial as they would later become. The ‗1940s‘ might sound very recent, but what I‘d like you to come to terms with is the difference between now and then regarding especially the ease of access to information. This was more than thirty years before Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak would build the personal computer; more than 40 years before ―Al Gore‖ would invent the internet; and long before the world would see a mobile phone in action. The best means of accessing information then was a walk to the library; a facility that was rare in many parts of the world. In the early decades and early in the second half of that century, when our parents got introduced to the Message, the world was a natural North Korea. The believability of the Message was undoubtedly enhanced by this helplessness of the masses.
Compare those days with the world of today, where a person in the most far-flung remote enclave can access almost any information they require through a small hand-held device, let alone a personal computer. Listeners will today reach for their mobile devices to check the veracity of what a speaker is trying to convey. Oppressive regimes in the Middle East have been toppled through the use of these impressive communication technologies. These are not Branham‘s times when any man with a nice suit and the gift of the gab could stand before an audience and peddle outright fabrications. We are not living in times when any layman with access to a word processor can manage to mislead the masses without loads of criticism. One of such laymen in Branham‘s times was a man named Lee Vayle, who helped Branham to come up with that unfortunate cluster of plagiarized materials, An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages,
Preface
8
which would not have survived even a week of the kind of scrutiny books go through nowadays as soon as they become available to the public.
This is a crucial difference we have to exploit. Thanks to this accessibility of information, you can now investigate each and every claim made by Branham. You can contact and hear from people who have testimonies about Branham. We can cross check every historical statement made by Brother Branham for its authenticity. This was not quite easy to do a long time ago as it is now, and it is an opportunity you cannot afford to let slip through your hands. And for the individual who already doubts the Message - in the same spirit - do not allow me to over-exploit your doubt. Do not hesitate to use that same power to cross-check and verify the information contained in this book. Until such a time as this is done, the simplest rebuttals from Message believers are likely to sway the new skeptic.
If every word in this book is read with utmost contemplation, many readers will have big questions by the time they are done with the last chapter. This is why it is recommended that you do not skip a single word in this book; and to this end I have taken great effort to keep things very brief, including the book itself; and great efforts have been taken to put things across in simple language. English is my third language. As a result, my grammar might not be very good. You can rest assured though that the intended message will be passed to you effectively.
―There is a mean streak in anyone who will destroy another's faith.‖ This quote and many other similar ones have been used by all kinds of believers to rebuke people who take the time and effort to expose false teachings. It is ambiguous in many respects, and whether it applies to some very harmful forms of ‗faith‘ is debatable. What I ask them in reply is this: Isn‘t there immense beauty in breaking free from a needlessly constricted and limited life? We only get one lifetime here on this earth; why would we want to spend it helplessly bound by false religions? I believe that if a person has broken free from a false belief system; and feels generally satisfied in life than she has ever been as a result, then it is mean for her not to share the source of that happiness with others. What follows here is the product of a decision to share my reasons for leaving the Message with people who are still adherents of – or are affected by – the Message.
I stand on the shoulders of giants. It was Peter Duyzer who exposed the cloud error in 1978, and inspired others to start talking about other possible anomalies in the Message. As a result, former Message believers, led by John Kennah, established an online community which has played a big role in exposing some of the things you will come across in this book. Branham‘s ministry went on for many decades, and these few pages will not cover everything there is to tackle. After you go through my two pence, don‘t hesitate to also go through the suggested further readings.
The inclusion of the word logical in the title is not just an incidental choice. It reflects the approach of this book. I will not dwell much on doctrinal issues, for such discussions rarely yield any kind of consensus. We‘ll be concerning ourselves only with the truth value of Branham‘s claims – those that can be logically tested. My business here is to show you that our pillars of
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
9
adherence to the Message are false. That‘s right, the occurrences and events that form the non sine qua of the Message are non-existent or misinterpreted by Branham. There was no cloud on Sunset; there were no Seven Church Ages or assigned messengers; Branham‘s faith healings were eventual disasters in many cases; his ‗revelations‘ are stolen from other writers; and so forth. Buckle up and brace yourself – you definitely want to find out what is in store. Having been there; having talked and introduced people to it; having been the model Message believer at one time; I contend that I am in a good position to talk to you about this matter. If the things contained in this book are true, as we shall see, then Branham‘s religion falls flat on its face.
Enjoy.
Sincerely yours,
Nathan.
Preface
10
11
CHAPTER 1
Fear is the Name of
the Game
Fears are educated into us, and can, if we wish, be educated out.
KARL AUGUSTUS MENNINGER
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
12
I remember that evening with remarkable vividness - it was around seven o‘clock when one of the ministers was called upon to conclude the mid-week service with a word of prayer. An ardent Message believer myself, I never missed these services. I was sited somewhere in the back; leaning backward on my seat, when the minister made the sad announcement – a death notice. We had lost a brother, as people refer to each other in the Message – or at least, a former brother, in a car accident. He didn‘t stop there. Pointing towards a picture of the Sunset Cloud hanging above him, he made a proclamation on the cause of his death: ―This brother tried to disprove the Sunset Cloud that appeared to the prophet. He tried to prove the prophet wrong. Yesterday he was involved in a road accident, and he died.‖ He did not explicitly claim that his death was a punishment for what he had done, but clearly, that was the implication. Needless to say the congregation was dead silent; seemingly with immense trepidation: speak against the prophet, and you‘re dead – is what that preacher was indeed trying to convey.
Think about hell just for a moment. This word scares each and every person who believes that the place exists. In very brief terms, it‘s said to be a very hot place purposefully created for the cooking of Satan and sinful people. William Branham says many times that he was taken on a tour of hell. He says, "There was no God there. It was just a endless, horrible, oh, nightmare. Burning, blazing hell, would be a pleasure to be in there beside of that...And I got into a place, smoke, and dark, and sick; and oh, such a feeling."1 In another instance he says, "When I was in the realms of the lost, I screamed, "Oh, God, don't never let a person come here." You can't... There's no tongue can it describe to you what the horrors of it is. There's no way for me to tell you. If you believe that there is a burning hell full of fire and brimstone, that would be a cool shady green pasture to the sight of what the horrors of this lost condition was in and the misery that has--that has associated that place."2
That‘s right, fire and brimstone according to Branham are luxuries compared with hell‘s real suffering. If anyone currently believes that Branham is a true ‗prophet‘, why would they want to mess around with the Message? They might end up in hell! Deny it they may, but hell is one of the coercive factors behind the veneration William Branham enjoys among Message believers. Those who do not believe the Message, and worse still, those who ridicule the prophet, will end up in hell. There‘s a special group of offenders who supposedly seal their fate right here on earth: those who blaspheme (speak ill of) the Holy Spirit, also known as the Holy Ghost. This sin cannot be forgiven, on earth or on heaven. This rule from the New Testament book of Matthew3 is used by false teachers to wrap terror around their teachings. For instance, the overly devout Message believer reading this book may have already concluded that the author is definitely bound for hell, having crossed the unforgivable line by speaking against the ‗Seventh Messenger‘ for these ‗last days‘.
A lad came forward and decided to test the prophet‘s faith healing and discernment capabilities. While William Branham was preaching in Canada, the lad wrote down on a prayer card that he had cancer and tuberculosis, while in real fact, he didn‘t. During the prayer service he went up to
Fear is the Name of the Game
13
the line and repeated his assertion and confronted the prophet to heal him. The prophet cautioned him repeatedly - but the warnings fell on deaf years. As a consequence the prophet smote him with both cancer and tuberculosis. The prophet says that he told him: "The things that you put on your card, you have. Both cancer and TB." And he fell down on the platform. But the last time I heard him, I never heard no more, just a letter from some of the people, that he was in a serious condition. So we're not playing church.‖4 Although no medical records, testimony from medical personnel, friends or family have since been obtained to corroborate Branham‘s claim that the young man acquired these diseases, this is a disturbing story that would fill the believer with dread, never to play around with the prophet again.
Woe unto you if you miss the rapture. If Branham‘s teachings are anything to go by, you‘ll be in for a very rough time. There will be great conflicts, and no one will be left alive. In his own words, the battle of Armageddon will ―destroy all things.‖5 There is coming great confusion, suffering and awe for those who shall not satisfy the criteria for being part of the bride. No one would wish the suffering that is supposedly coming onto this sinful world on their worst enemy. Just before the rapture is to take place, the city of Los Angeles will, according to William Branham, sink deep into the ocean. ―God Almighty will sink them‖, he says.6 Millions of people will perish during this event that will move and shock the world.
Meet fear. It‘s probably what you‘re beginning to experience after reading the first few paragraphs of this chapter. Right now, if you were born and raised in the Message, or have been its long time adherent, you probably are filled with fear just for daring to read this book. You even might be filled with pity for the author because of the curses he is attracting towards himself for speaking against the prophet of our age. For you to really engage and accompany me to a simple and practical journey that lies in the chapters ahead, this is a feeling you will have to conquer. It‘s a feeling I had to conquer myself before I abandoned Branhamism, before I gained the courage to speak against it, and before I set out to begin research work on this book about a year ago. I guess my initial remarks concerning fear at this point would be to point out that those feelings are absolutely normal. You‘re not alone.
Should we just collapse under the fear and dare not listen to opposing points of view? I beg to say that we shouldn‘t. To begin with, we should deal with one of these sources of fear: that bad things happen to people who oppose the prophet. Here there is a technique you should reject right away, because it falls down flat under a fallacy. It‘s the one used by the Message preacher I mentioned earlier. Adherents and apologists of questioned teachings will often pick a few cases of terrible things that happened to people who opposed them and present it as proof of supernatural endorsement of their false teachings. This hopeless technique is achieved by relating bad things that would normally occur to people to their unbelief in the teachings being protected. To illustrate this point, take the case of the brother who got involved in a road accident. Anyone on this planet may be unfortunate enough to get involved in a road accident: non-believers, strict adherents of the Message, indifferent church members and those bitterly opposed to the Message – may be involved in a fatal road accident, and it does happen from time
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
14
to time. But when it happens to someone who was trying to disprove the prophet, it just happens that the road accident was as a result of that person opposing the Message.
If you have been in the Message for long enough you most probably will have come under the influence of this fallacious technique at some point in your life. The fear generated from this method may be temporarily addressed by thinking about the thousands who have spoken against the Message for virtually their entire lifetimes and are still walking tall and strong on God‘s green earth. However, as the truth begins to set in, this fear will gradually disappear. The ‗tiny‘ bit they usually leave out when they are talking to you about bad things that happened to people who spoke against the Message is the millions of people who have been introduced to it but were reflective and informed enough not only to reject it but to speak and warn others against it, and are still living happy lives free from the bondage of a false religion.
Launch your research today. Investigate how many online groups, individuals across the world, Christian groups and counter-cult organizations are speaking against Branhamism on this planet and you will find that they are quite numerous. These groups and organizations jointly have thousands of members. Add to this number the millions of people who have been introduced to the Message and have gone on to rubbish it and the number of religious leaders who constantly warn their members against Branhamism. If speaking against Branhamism brings about serious consequences such as death, anti-Branhamism would be ranked among top killers in the world amongst the likes of Cancer and AIDS.
It is easy, when enclosed in the cocoon of the Message, to think that very few people leave the Message and talk to others against it, and that those who do so suffer bad things in their lives as a result. Nothing could be further from the truth. First and foremost, we former believers live very normal, satisfying lives. We do not need the Message to be happy or to assuage the fear of hell, because we don‘t have any. We‘re not going to burn in hell for abandoning a false religion. There are quite a number of us, and as the information contained in this book continues to reach more believers, our number will definitely continue to grow. There is nothing to fear for now, only an open mind is required. The good thing about the evidence to follow is that it is quite strong - not even fear will prevent you from seeing it. In the course of this book I will provide you with some suggestions for good online communities of former believers where you can continue to listen to our side of the story after you‘re done with reading this book.
Branham‘s supernatural displays, such as when he allegedly smote that poor lad with cancer and tuberculosis, may also scare some people. One may ask, what about the signs and wonders that William Branham performed? Wouldn‘t a person in their right mind fear and respect what he had to say? Mr. Branham dazzled hundreds of thousands of people with his wonders. I am not declaring their authenticity. We can get into a debate on whether his miracles were real or not – and we will in the coming chapters – but for the sake of this particular argument, let us assume that his signs, wonders and miracles were real.
Fear is the Name of the Game
15
If we were to believe every Tom, Dick and Harry that serves a dinner of great miracles and then offers a dessert of doctrines for us to believe in, then the world would be overwhelmed with countless ‗true‘ beliefs. At this point I would like to point out the fact that William Branham did not possess a monopoly on signs and wonders, and if you are a Message believer just for the fact that William Branham performed miracles then it‘s high time you began to reconsider your beliefs. Supernatural powers have been claimed by founders of almost all major religious establishments in the world, including Islam. Prophet Muhammad also allegedly had supernatural experiences during which the Angel Gabriel would dictate the Qur‘an, and was even at one time flown from Mecca to Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, then to heaven and back. Supernatural abilities cannot be relied on to establish the truth of any proposition. Many charismatic Christian leaders have been said to possess phenomenal supernatural abilities. These include the likes of Smith Wigglesworth, the absurd Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts and Aimee McPherson. There are many testimonies of people who have been miraculously healed by these people including the blind being able to see, people with terminal diseases testing negative and the lame being able to walk. Yet these religious figures carry with them very divergent doctrines - some even directly contradicting each other – therefore offering us a red light when it comes to relying on supernatural abilities to authenticate doctrines. There are numerous people – and you should investigate – that are endowed with amazing ‗supernatural‘ talents and many of them do not even profess any religion. Message believers will mention things such as mysterious lights in the prophet‘s photographs as God‘s vindication of Branham‘s Message. If you consult books such as the Supernatural series by Owen Jorgensen, you will come across phenomenal supernatural things that Mr. Branham allegedly used to do. He could tell his friends what kind of fish they would catch and at what time – before they set off for a fishing trip, and it would happen exactly as he said – according to one of these books. At this point we‘re not questioning whether or not Mr. Branham possessed these capabilities; we‘re questioning whether (if we assume he was capable) this should be grounds for believing everything that he told us.
As we will see in the coming chapters, Branham used to claim that the supernatural events surrounding his life were good proof that his teachings were biblical. Authors of the Bible clearly anticipated this kind of scenario. They had laid down some doctrines – but what if some bloke came along and disputed them, and performed some miracles to enhance his credibility? It is written in the book of Matthew:
 As I mentioned in the introduction, we will not concern ourselves with the discussion of biblical doctrines. We will visit the Bible only when we need to show that Branham was in the habit of taking advantage of gullible Christians by misusing their holy text, the Bible, to support his claim of being a prophet, such as when he used text from the ancient Jewish book of Malachi to set himself up as the last messenger.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
16
On that day many will say to me, ‗Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?‘ And I will declare to them, ‗I never knew you; depart from me, you evil doers.7
Christians may draw several conclusions from this verse. First and most important of all, the Bible is saying that there are people who perform miracles but the miracles are not from God, and even worse, will end up in hell. Secondly, we see from the above verse that evil people have the ability to perform miracles, according to the Bible. Therefore we cannot prove or disprove teachings based on signs and wonders performed by the messenger. If your preacher gathers some quotes from the Message in which the prophet says that his signs and wonders were proof that what he was saying was true, you know how to respond – at least in your mind – since Message churches do not allow for too much, if any, questioning of commonly held beliefs – however ridiculous they might be. Besides, every time you feel afraid of doubting Branham when you remember his alleged supernatural displays, recall how you‘ve not been moved before by ‗denominational‘ preachers who put up impressive faith healing displays. They don‘t terrify you one bit, and in a similar way, Branham‘s alleged supernatural capabilities should not scare you one bit.
This leaves us with one source of fear mentioned earlier: the fear of going to hell if you doubt the prophet. Here you will have to initially grant the rationality of the author, and other outspoken Message critics: if I believed for sure that Branham‘s Message is true and that I would burn for millions of years if I doubted it, let alone spoke against it, trust me dear readers, I would still be a devout Message believer. But the evidence is quite compelling, and without a doubt I have come to know that Branham‘s entire ‗end-time Message‘ is a complete and utter absurdity. As a result, I do not fear any consequences, for there are no adverse results that come out of abandoning a false religion. You will not be punished for leaving a false religion behind, I would like to emphasize.
Fear is a physiological mechanism present in all animals. There are regions of the brain that are responsible for eliciting the responses we commonly package and label as fear. Every time you experience the feelings of fear, there are certain chemicals that are released in your brain that trigger the feelings of alarm you‘re experiencing. And many people go through the effect of these chemicals when in a similar situation: the Mormon will be extremely scared to confront and abandon the nonsense contained in the Book of Mormon. The door-knocking Jehovah‘s Witness will shake and tremble when daring for the first time to confront Charles Taze Russell‘s dubious teachings. The Muslim – let‘s not even go there. (These ones might actually be understandably fearful, for they might be beheaded if they leave Islam!) That being said, it is important for you to realize two things: that the source of fear is within you; and that you‘re not unique because you fear to confront the other side of William Branham. We all were terrified at first.
Fear is the Name of the Game
17
Interestingly, the experience of fear does not always mean the presence of danger or imminent harm to the organism. If I placed a small non-venomous snake on your lap, you‘d probably be filled with fear of enormous proportions. This will be the case despite the fact that the animal offers no possible form of danger. Your body will produce the adrenaline nonetheless, since you associate snakes with extreme danger. The presence of fear is not necessarily proof of imminent danger, I would like to emphasize. If you‘re filled with fear of confronting the truth behind Branham‘s teachings, it‘s important for you to realize that your feelings are not proof of imminent danger, and more importantly, the source of those feelings of fear is within you, they‘re not by any means being brought about by some supernatural power trying to warn you, as some people would like to believe. It‘s the chemicals. It‘s the adrenaline. The Message adherent might be producing a lot of it by the time they hit the third chapter, I can only hope that they will not attribute the effects of the mere chemical to a supernatural force.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
18
19
CHAPTER 2
Psychological Barriers that
Get in the Way
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.
GALILEO GALILEI
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
20
Message believers may be grouped into two: those who were born and raised in the Message, and those who were not originally believers but were introduced to the teachings later on in life. When engaging in debates about the Message, I‘ve come to realize that the hardest people to dissuade from Branham‘s Message are those who were born and raised in it. Those who were introduced to the Message as adults know why they decided to get into it. If you then target the pillars of their belief and disprove them, they‘ll get to see your point. If for example they were dazzled by the pillars of fire, the cloud at Mt. Sunset, the healings and the prophecies - and from there began giving attention to Mr. Branham‘s doctrines, then you may easily target and disprove these ‗initial attractions‘ and you‘ll leave their trust in Branham at a very fragile state.
The hardest people to convince are people like me – those of us who were born and raised in the Message. This is because our belief is implanted deep within our minds since childhood; it‘s a form of mental conditioning that takes place and has some permanency. Many of my friends with whom I‘ve grown up with in the Message cannot explain convincingly the major tenets of ‗Branhamic‘ faith, if I might be allowed to coin the term, but they are strong Message believers. They just believe in it. And if they question it, they feel as guilty as a first time murderer. If they hear you oppose it, you‘re accorded a ‗mad man‘ status, literally. This happens despite the fact that some Message believers do not even come close to satisfying the criteria for those who will make it into the rapture – they live as they wish, but they cling tight to ‗Branhamic‘ doctrines – they deal with the guilt on Sundays. These ‗Message-borns‘ are the people I would like to address first.
If you do a little observation, you‘ll come to find out that most children born to Muslim parents become Muslims; most children born to Message believers become Message believers; most children born to Hindu parents turn out as Hindus; and most children born to indifferent parents turn out to be indifferent when it comes to religious beliefs. This is no accident, friends. There exists a systematic process, even if we do not realize it - that permanently conditions the mind of a child as he or she grows up that ensures that they cling exclusively to the belief introduced by the parent; however ridiculous the belief might be.
Let‘s take an example of a baby who has just been born into a Muslim family. The minds of children are born blank: therefore all children just coming into this world do not believe in any religion. As soon as the kid can mumble a few words, among the first words the kid is introduced to will include Allah and Muhammad. As soon as the kid learns how sing, among the first songs the kid learns to sing are Islamic songs. As soon as the kid learns how to read and write, among the first texts he or she will read is the Qur‘an. When the kid is old enough to comprehend ideas, among the first ideas he or she is introduced to are Islamic teachings: that Islam is the one and only true religion, that Muhammad is Allah‘s only true prophet, and that all other religions and false and evil.
To enhance the conditioning, the parents utilize a method similar to the one used to shoot electrons in a cathode ray tube, which is usually very effective. On one side, from which the
Psychological Barriers that Get in the Way
21
electrons originate, they are repelled using a powerful negative charge, and on the other end towards which they are supposed to travel, they are attracted using a powerful positive charge. This causes them to travel in super high speeds towards the attractive direction. The kid is repeatedly told that if they adhere to Islamic teaching, there is a big reward: eternal life in heaven (attraction). Further the kids are warned that if they do not adhere to Islamic teachings they will go to hell and burn forever (repulsion). This causes them to ‗travel in super high speeds‘ towards Islam.
What‘s worse, when a baby comes into this world, he or she learns to trust the parents, unreservedly. Whatever they say is more often than not held as absolute truth by the kid as he or she grows up. The important point I‘d like you to note at this point is that it does not matter whether what the parents are saying is true or not, the kid believes it anyway. Secondly, when the kid becomes of age, they do not bother to investigate the truth behind the beliefs introduced to them by their parents; since it would amount to investigating obviously true facts. Therefore as a young Muslim grows up, they come to regard teachings of the Qur‘an as the absolute and indisputable truth.
Were you born and raised in the Message and still hold on to it as the absolute truth? Then you are a victim of the above process. Allow me to get a little, just a little – into your face and suggest that had you been born into a Muslim family, you most probably would be a strong believer in Islam as you are in the Message right now. When you come into this world as a baby, you‘re the most vulnerable intelligent organism on the planet. Whatever your mind shall be trained to believe as you grow up, you most likely will hold on to it even as an adult, regardless of whether or not it is true. As soon as you could speak, among the first words you were introduced to included God and Branham. As soon as you could sing, the first songs you were introduced to were songs from the book Only Believe. As soon as you could read, among the first books you held in your hands were Message books.
As soon as you were old enough to grasp some ideas, the first ideas you were taught included the fact that Branham was a true prophet of God and that all other Christian denominations, let alone other religions, are of the devil. And finally, the worst of them all, as you grew up, you grasped onto these ideas as absolute truth and since they are obviously factual, then you, as a grown up individual intellectually independent of your parents, have never taken the initiative to investigate whether everything you were told about Branham is true.
Instead, you‘ve grown up believing that such an investigation would amount to questioning the word of God, which is an enormous sin. But there is another perspective I would like to introduce you to. It‘s called the use of very simple reasoning. We are all familiar with what the Message says about the use of reason. It strongly forbids the use of reason when it comes to matters spiritual – there are many quotes on that. But let‘s dive into this sea of reason and see what causes all faiths to heavily discourage its use.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
22
Among many other definitions of ‗reason‘, it may be described as ―the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises.‖1 There is nothing so complicated about this kind of reasoning, and we practice it on a daily basis. There‘s a false perception in the Message that reasoning entails exclusively the application of complex philosophical procedures. Weighing assertions against facts is also reasoning, and there‘s nothing harmful about this very useful tool. What if I told you: William Branham was not even at the Houston Coliseum in Texas the night the famous pillar of fire photograph was taken. You would swing into action and provide facts that show my assertion is not true: you‘d provide photographs, eye witness accounts and records that show Branham was at the hall that night. You would be weighing my assertion against facts; and you‘d be absolutely right in declaring my statement false. Through the simple use of reasoning, you‘ll have formed a true conclusion.
Notice that through the use of reason, you have been able to establish whether something is true or false. When religious leaders tell you not to employ the use of reason in spiritual matters, it‘s a bit ironical since you came to believe in religion through the use of reason. When you were a child, you were presented with two options: believe the Message and go to heaven; fail to believe in it and burn in hell. You therefore employed the use of reason to come to the conclusion that between the two, heaven would be much more desirable, since burning results in excruciating pain that would be undesirable and on the other hand heaven flows with milk and honey. You also employed the use of reason and realized that to keep your parents happy you‘d have to adhere to the Message and its practices; and also in order to fit in within your group of playmates you‘d have to conform to the Message culture.
When we become of age, we carry along all the beliefs that were entrenched within us through prolonged mental conditioning. Some of these beliefs may be true, others may be false. To debunk the false beliefs, some reasoning (the kind we‘ve discussed above) will have to be employed. The adherent will have to employ the use of reason in order to establish the truth of what he or she has believed in for a long time. This is where the intelligence factor might come in. It‘s observable that for a person to abandon their religious beliefs, it most often takes a combination of low exposure (to the religious teachings) and any level of intelligence, or high exposure and a good level of intelligence. This is not meant to imply that people who still believe the Message are not sharp (they‘re just not informed) or that those who abandoned the Message are sharp – this is just a signal for you to put your reasoning gear on.
All Message believers share a similar environment of high exposure. Message believers encourage isolation from other religious groups and saturate their members‘ minds with high doses of doctrine regularly. The average Branhamite may be said to be under a high level of exposure to Branhamic doctrines, but this does not worry me, because even the intelligence of a mere child can debunk Mr. Branham‘s allegations. If it was obviously clear that many of Mr. Branham‘s allegations were open lies, then we wouldn‘t have millions of people as adherents of the Message. We will need to get a bit technical to disprove these widely held beliefs; but I‘m
Psychological Barriers that Get in the Way
23
glad it doesn‘t take Einsteinian intelligence to figure it out, otherwise I‘d still be in the Message! The problem we have is that no one will dare to ask the questions.
Through the use of reason, we are able to come to a conclusion on whether something presented to us is true or false. You will realize that by using your reasoning ability, you‘ll end up realizing the truth. Even Mr. Branham knew it; despite the numerous times he said we shouldn‘t reason out things to do with God‘s word, he clearly advocates the use of reason in order to debunk the absurdity behind the doctrine of the Trinity:
―How can three persons be in one God? Not only is there no Bible for it, but it shows even a lack of intelligent reasoning.‖2
Notice: the truth always endures the test of reason. So you shouldn‘t be scared to dive into the practice of reasoning, since: if it‘s the truth, it‘ll come out standing. If it‘s false, it‘ll tumble down like a house of cards. This should afford you some peace of mind, knowing that at the other side of reason, the truth abides. If Branham‘s Message is true, it‘ll happily be waiting for you on the other side of reason, with open arms.
Cognitive Dissonance
This is a feeling you will soon begin to experience as you start discovering the truth about the Message, therefore it‘s important that we address it beforehand to ensure that it does not become a hindrance to further discovery once it sets in. We may use a simple illustration. Suppose someone named John was raised by parents who are strong Christians and have tutored him in biblical teachings faithfully since his childhood. He has a loving mother and a loving father he has accompanied to church as long as he can remember. Daddy was always there for the family, faithfully serving, guiding and leading. He never in a single instance saw Daddy raise a hand or throw harsh words towards his mother – theirs was always a peaceful and loving family.
Fate, however, decides to deal them a blow. One day, John decides to pay his parents a visit. Once he gets home, he rings the door bell but no one answers the door. He does this several times but still no one responds. He then rushes back to his vehicle and obtains a copy of the house keys, opens up the door and find his way in. The house is dead silent; it seems no one is present. As he slowly makes his way towards the living room, he notices a trail of blood drops. He immediately panics but keeps on following the blood trail nevertheless. Once he gets to the living room, he finds his mother lying on a big pool of blood – it looks like she was a victim of a very brutal murder.
John tries to contact the father but the call does not go through. He calls the police. Once they arrive, they cordon off the area and begin their investigation. Shocked and grief stricken, John goes back to the city to inform his friends and family about this incident as he awaits results of the police investigation. But the investigation is carried out more swiftly than John expected and after two days, he gets a call from the police station and he is requested to come in. Once he gets there, he is informed that the police have apprehended the person who killed his mom and that
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
24
the man is now in custody. The police then inform John that the man has since requested to speak to him. This outrageous request from the man who killed his mother infuriates him but the police convince him to go see the murderer. John is slowly led towards the heavily guarded cells and they finally get to the cell where they are holding his mother‘s murderer. It‘s his father behind the bars. The man who has been arrested for his mother‘s murder is none other than John‘s father. He murdered his wife.
John now turns his anger towards the police. He refuses to accept that his father is capable of murder. He goes into an enraged outburst. Carefully put yourself in John‘s shoes and notice that you‘d have the exact same initial reaction since he has always known his father to be a kind and loving person. He has never exhibited violent behavior, and for this reason, he refuses to accept the allegations. The police then guide John to a holding room, at least to calm him down. After ten minutes the police show up with a bunch of clear bags labeled ‗evidence.‘
They then begin presenting it to John. To begin with, they show him the murder weapon – a large, blood-stained kitchen knife. John recognizes the knife from their home cutlery collection. The police then inform him that his father‘s fingerprints were all over the murder weapon. Next, they inform him that they caught John‘s father in a lie since his alibi claim was disproved. They then bring in a young man, who apparently was supposed to be collecting garbage from their home at around the time the murder took place. It turns out that the young man saw John‘s father hurriedly washing his hands and quickly taking off in his car. And to cap it all up, DNA examination on the blood stains found on his father‘s sweater that he dumped along the way as he ran off found that the blood was his mother‘s.
John now breaks into a heavy sob. He begins wailing loudly wondering how this could have happened. He appears to have calmed down but then all over sudden gets into another outburst. Despite the overwhelming evidence presented before him, John refuses again to accept that his father committed the murder. He accuses the police of fabricating evidence and planting a false witness – alleging that the police are known to be corrupt and undependable. As a final blow that is supposed to kill all doubt, they escort John back to his father‘s cell. His father looks him straight in the eyes and confesses to the murder and informs his son that he would be pleading guilty for murder when he is charged before a court of law. John resumes his wailing and still refuses to accept, accusing the police of coercing his father for a confession.
Notice the psychological forces that are playing out in John‘s mind during this incident. Since John was a child, he has known his father to be loving and kind. This he has learnt to believe with his heart and soul as he grew up. This became entrenched within himself and convincing him otherwise would prove to be an arduous task. Therefore, when he hears that his father committed murder, despite the fact that it is true, the entrenched belief (that his father is kind and loving) will throw him into a denial and provide possible explanations for the news he is receiving. This is known as cognitive dissonance. The first time, it threw him into a denial and provided the explanation that the police fabricated the evidence. This happens again when he
Psychological Barriers that Get in the Way
25
hears a confession from the father, when the same entrenched belief throws him into a denial and provides the possible explanation that his father was coerced for a confession. Even if the father is convicted for the crime, John might go to the grave still claiming his father‘s innocence. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful psychological occurrence; neutralizing it may be impossible.
If you have been a believer of Branham‘s Message for a long time, or if you were born and raised in the Message, these beliefs are entrenched within you. If you‘re told that William Branham‘s Message is not true, you most likely will not believe it. Cognitive dissonance will offer an explanation that whoever says so bears no proof and that the prophet said that you should not subject God’s matters to human reasoning. If the proof is presented before you, for example if the Mt. Sunset cloud is proven to be a hoax and outright lie, cognitive dissonance will still be there to hurl you back to what you‘ve been believing in since time immemorial, however clear it might be that Mr. Branham was a dishonest man. But that will not change the fact that what you believe in is not true, just like John‘s refusal doesn‘t change the fact that his father killed his mother.
Suppose the prophet sprang back to life again, literally – let‘s say his grave bursts wide open and out strides the prophet himself. Everyone agrees that it is the real William Branham, including his children. He even performs great miracles like he used to, to prove that he‘s the real guy. No one is left with a doubt that the prophet of the age has risen from the dead. He then proclaims that he has come to rectify the mistake he made during his lifetime. With that being said, he begins by saying that his Message was an outright lie. He then goes round the world telling people to abandon his Message since it is not the truth from God.
What do you think would be the reaction from believers? Personally, I‘m persuaded to think that Message believers all over the world will dismiss this ‗William Branham‘ as an imposter. You see, cognitive dissonance is a powerful psychological force that does not easily relent. Due to their entrenched beliefs, they will offer possible explanations and even offer quotes that say that something like this could happen near the end. The William Branham raised from the dead would ironically be banned from all Branhamite churches all over the world. Please note how powerful this psychological force is: nothing can convince Message believers that the Message is not true. I‘m persuaded to think that not even the risen William Branham himself could.
My favorite saying - that demonstrates this very reality - comes from a preacher who used to frequent our church when I was little. He said: ―If I live according to the Message and yet find myself in hell, I still will not dismiss the Message as not true. I will say to the people I find there: ‗I don‘t know why I am here‘‖. Looks like cognitive dissonance would still affect him in the other world. In order to face the truth, friends, this is a battle we will have to fight. We will have to fight the force that throws us into denial when we‘re faced with the truth that sharply contrasts what we have believed in for so many years. That voice that persuades us to cling to our previously held beliefs despite glaring evidence that they‘re false is our biggest enemy here. It is to this kind of evidence that we now turn.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
26
27
CHAPTER 3
There Was No Cloud
on Mt. Sunset
It was quickly established that the cloud lay overhead in the vicinity of Flagstaff, Arizona.
DR. JAMES MCDONALD
And there, right under It, I was standing.
WILLIAM BRANHAM
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
28
The supernatural cloud that appeared on Mt. Sunset
There are photographs you will find in Message believers‘ churches, homes and offices – and among them is the photograph of the stratospheric cloud that appeared over northern Arizona in 1963. A lot of information has been put forward by Message believers concerning this cloud. Mr. Branham claims that this extra-ordinary cloud was formed by angels who commissioned him to head back east and reveal the seven seals. He further claims the cloud formed the face of Jesus. Mr. Branham calls this place Sunset Mountain hence many believers refer to this cloud as the Mt. Sunset cloud. The name of the peak Mr. Branham was referring to is actually known as Sunset Peak. We have in our possession as a body of believers and former believers verbatim utterances by Mr. Branham concerning this cloud that will be presented here in order to compare his account with scientific reports of what actually happened that day.
I would like to point out that a lot of information was gathered by many individuals about that particular cloud. As a matter of fact, coincidentally, ―the cloud appeared within a few tens of miles of the U.S. Weather Bureau radiosonde station at Winslow, Arizona, and a high-altitude sounding had been completed there only an hour before the appearance of the cloud.‖ This is according to Dr. James McDonald in an article we will introduce to you shortly. Over 150 reports and 80 photographs of the cloud were submitted at the request of Dr. McDonald of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona in Tucson. We therefore have extensive reports about the cloud from spectators, photographers, journalists and scientists.
Here we will present two accounts: one from Mr. Branham and one from people who actually saw the cloud accompanied by reports from scientists who carried out studies about the cloud. Since Mr. Branham says that he saw the cloud, then his account should be congruent to all other numerous eye witness accounts and photographs that were submitted concerning the cloud. Therefore to establish the truth about this cloud, we will begin by establishing what Mr. Branham told us about the cloud, after which we will compare it with what actually happened that day. Then we will leave the judgment to you, hoping that to thine own self, at least, you‘ll be honest.
“What‟s the big deal with the cloud anyway?”
Message apologists often criticize Branham‘s refuters for spending a lot of time and energy disputing the cloud occurrence. One of them asks us:
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
29
―And why are the anti-Branham people so taken up with this CLOUD or even the Supernatural Light (halo above Branham's head) more than the Word of God? Why are there all the questions and arguments about the CLOUD? Such things are unprofitable and useless. Just get into THE WORD!‖1
Such a position tends to be baffling. Why would anyone ask Christians why they‘re so taken up with the appearance of Jesus in a cloud while it‘s the very same thing they‘ve been waiting for since 2,000 years ago? In fact, the very basic tenet of Christianity is that Jesus Christ will return in the skies and therefore Christians should prepare for this day by living a righteous life. Secondly, when incidents such as the cloud and the halo of light are used as proof of The Word you want us to get into, it only follows that we should first and foremost be sure that the said proof is watertight!
But most importantly, it‘s rather vital for believers to notice that without the cloud there really is no Message. First and foremost, if there‘s no cloud, then this proves that Branham was a gigantic liar, and his trustworthiness on everything else is to be questioned. Secondly, Branham ties up the cloud with many central doctrines, most notably the Seven Seals. In fact, he says he was commissioned to ―head back east‖ and reveal the seals during this cloud occurrence. A core belief among Message believers today is that Jesus‘ second coming has already take place – on Mt Sunset – and the world missed it, just as most of them will miss the rapture; which the descended Christ is preparing his children for right here on earth right now. Whoever wrote the article quoted above (a name is not provided) should realize this simple fact: there is no Message if there is no cloud.
William Branham‟s Story
The prophet claims that the cloud appeared when they were out on a trip to hunt javelina with two of his friends, Gene Norman and Fred Sothmann, on a place known as Sunset Mountain which is located north east of Tucson. This trip happened between March 6 and 9 1963.2 What follows is one among many of Mr. Branham‘s accounts of the occurrence. Many of his accounts are not entirely similar but we need to hear him out directly as he tells us the story:
―So then, and going back, I went up in the mountain and I went with Brother Fred Sothmann. He's here somewhere. Brother Fred, where are you at? Right here. Brother Fred Sothmann, Brother Gene Norman; one day, the second day setting there, the Angel of the Lord came right down into the camp where we was at and begin to tell about their children and things they were doing.
I left and went back on the hill. And I'd already got my javelina; I was trying to chase one around to Brother Fred. So I found where they'd been eating on the side of a hill, and I said, "Well, now, I'll tell you what I'll do, Brother Fred." I said, "Now, you go over on that point in the morning." We go up there at daylight, climb up over the mountain. "And go there at daylight, I'll get over on the other side. Now, I won't shoot one, but if they run this way, I'll shoot in front of them and turn them back. You pick out a big one."
"All right," he said.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
30
So Brother Fred went over there. And Brother Gene Norman (I don't think Brother Gene come, did he?), he was--he was on the other side. Many of you know Gene Norman, a bosom friend of many, fine brother. And he went down a little below where the--them pigs, they just wasn't there that morning. I could see Brother Fred, wave at him, he was about a mile away from me. Well, I thought, "Where could they have went?" I went down into a great ravine, and come down; I thought, "I'll see if I can find where they're at." Started back up. It was just a little after daylight; the sun was just begin coming up.
And I went around a great big chasm, oh, my, hundreds and hundreds of feet, just great rocks in the great canyon there, them big walls. And it was kindly getting... The sun was raising up, about seven o'clock, I guess, or something like that. And I set down and I was looking around; I happened to look down on my trouser leg and there was that bull-header, burr. And I said, "You know, that seems strange. You know, the Angel of the Lord told me I'd be about forty miles northeast of Tucson; I'd be picking a bull-header off of my leg." You remember I seen it? Uh-huh. See? And I said, "That's strange." I was holding it.
And just as I looked up, I seen about twenty hogs about five hundred yards from me, come out eating this little phyllary and laid down. I said, "Now, if I can just get Brother Fred and get him around to that point there, he'll get his hog right there. But I know he's about a mile or two from me now." So I said, "if I could cross over this little ridge without them seeing me, up by this little juniper tree there," I said, "if I get around this side, there's a deer trail comes down this side; I can run up there and get out of the way. And hang a little piece of paper here where I know which one of the fingers to go out on, on the canyon, and get Brother Fred there just in time."
I throwed this little bull-header down, forgetting about that, and started across the hill real easy and looked back, they didn't see me, and run down and hit this deer trail. I had a great big black hat on. I started running up through this canyon real fast, and it happened.
The whole earth shook, everywhere. Rocks that size rolled down, dust flying like that. And I looked, and standing before me stood seven Angels, just exactly the way it was. I felt like I was standing way up off the ground. First, I thought somebody'd shot me, you know, with that black hat on; looked like a javelina hog, anyhow, you know, they're dark. I thought somebody'd shot me, such a... right close. And I--I seen then what it was. Well, as soon as... I got my commission, and the Scripture, "The Seven Seals which is the seven mysteries..." See?‖
―In there I watched it until that circle went up, started sweeping up, and they turned into like a mystic light, like a fog. Just exactly the way... How many seen the picture of It that was taken in Houston? Nearly all. See? Well, that's just the way this was. It turned into the same thing, It kept going higher and higher.
I was running and running, trying to find Brother Fred and them. After while, about a half hour later, I could see him way down, waving his hands; and Brother Gene coming, waving. They knowed something had happened. And so then I got with them. That's Brother Fred setting right there.
As it went up, I didn't know that the observatories and things, plumb into Mexico, was taking that picture. "Life" magazine packed it as It went up. And many of you... Here's "Life" magazine packing the picture of It. A mysterious thing here, they said they don't know where it come from; it's too high. It's above all the spheres and everything else to be... It's too high for fog, because it's
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
31
thirty miles high and twenty-seven miles across after it got up that high. There's not even humidity nor nothing up there. You see?
And they thought of a plane; so they checked all the places, no planes up that day. See, they have to, on account of shaking windows and things. "There's no planes up." Here it is right here in the magazine, will tell you the same thing. And--and it went on and on. And today right in the...
Here it is in "Science" magazine, where they can't understand; they don't know what It is.
Tucson, at the university, a friend of mine went over the other day and was talking to them about it. Said, "We can't understand what..."
I said, "Don't say nothing, don't do no good. 'Cast not your pearls before swine.'" See? It's to the church, to the elected, the called-out. See?
And then each one was coming, saying, "Brother Branham, I see your picture here. I see this. I..." You know how it is. But that--that long sweep as this brother has on here where its... Excuse me [Brother Branham gets the photograph--Ed.]. Here's the way It started up, sweeping up. Actually this was on the right hand side. And you all remember I said, "The noted Angel was the one that talked to me, was on the right hand side," even before it happened. You remember? His wings pointed back like that, that's exactly the wings of that Angel as it went up. See, as it... So they started taking the pictures because it was so mysterious. But when the last picture, when It formed Itself into the skies and so forth, this is it as "Look" here packed it. You see how it rose up just as they begin to see it. You see? And there comes the--the real main and last picture, when it formed.
They don't know where it come from or where it went; they don't know yet. Science is completely stumped about it, don't know what happened. But we know; "there shall be signs in the heaven above." We know it. See? And He promised these things. See? And the only thing that this was permitted to be taken...‖
―Now, this--this picture, I was standing, looking at it, and something... I was standing in my room. Something said, "Turn it to the right."‖
―I thought, "I think I'm looking at it right."
Said, "Turn it right." See?
I thought, "Maybe that Voice means turn it to the right." And when I did, you see what it is: Hofmann's Head of Christ, at thirty-three. Here, looky here, see His dark beard, His face, His eyes, His nose, and everything else. See the part in His hair here coming up. And He's wigged with that white Angel wig to show that the Message of Him being God is the Truth. He is the supreme Judge of the universe, supreme Judge of heaven and earth. He is God, and nothing else but God. He is God expressed in human form called the Son of God, which the Son was the mask. And if that don't make our Message exactly right: identified by the Scripture, identified in service, identified by His Presence, the same yesterday, today, and forever... Therefore those Seven Seals are the Truth, brethren.‖
―And then when it come, this, then I see what it is. Here's His dark beard. You seen It, I guess. See? His dark beard and dark hair, His eyes, nose, everything, just perfectly, and even the part in His hair coming over on this side. He is God. See? And He's the same yesterday, today, and
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
32
forever. And this is "Look" magazine--or "Life" magazine. I think this is the... I forget what issue it is now; oh, May the seventeenth, 1963. That's when it come out, if anybody wants the magazine. It's the same picture that's got Rockefeller and his--his wife on the back of it. And this is the new "Science" magazine that "it's still a mystery."‖ (TRYING.TO.DO.GOD.A.SERVICE_ SHP.LA V-7 N-2 SATURDAY_ 65-1127B, par 63 onwards. For the reader not familiar with VOG‘s style of referencing Branham‘s sermons, please see the introductory paragraph of the Notes section.)
The above account provides several details about this trip. From this story we see that Mr. Branham says that the cloud formed or appeared at sunrise; secondly he indicates the location of this occurrence in many other quotes as Sunset peak, which is part of the Galiuro Mountains within Coronado Forest 40 miles north east of Tucson, Arizona. Seven angels appeared to him after the blast; they then turned into fog and began ascending and kept going higher. When the angels were high up in the stratosphere, they formed the face of Jesus. As bizarre as this account may already seem to a non Branhamite, at this juncture it makes perfect sense to a Believer.
Further Mr. Branham emphasizes that he was standing right under the cloud when he was at sunset:
Now, science took the picture of It, you seen It, went on Associated Press. They didn't know what It was. There's a Cloud hanging, twenty-six miles high. That's fifteen miles, or twenty, above even where vapor's at. They don't know what it's all going about, and they're trying to investigate It. And there, right under It, I was standing. And those seven Angels roaring out their voices, of those Seven Seals, standing there. And the witness, three of us, as a witness of the things that was prophesied on the tape, "Sirs, What Time Is It?" And there now they're trying to find out. It's a mystery to them. (emphasis added) (LORD.JUST.ONCE.MORE_ HOT.SPRINGS.AR V-20 N-10 FRIDAY_ 63-0628A, par 42)
The quote above places the stratospheric cloud at Sunset peak sometime during the day they were on the hunting trip. Additionally, he claims that the famous cloud photograph (that allegedly forms an outline of Jesus‘ face) was a picture of the cloud that stood directly above him at Sunset peak. And even further, he says that the photograph was taken ‗the same time he was there‘.
And He said, "He is wigged." Watch in the book, before it ever happened, I said that. And that day when that happened, it went up. And then you turn that picture sideways, if you've got "Look" magazine or "Life" magazine. Turn it sideways. There He is, just perfectly Hofmann's Head of Christ, looking right down where I was standing; there It is in the magazine. How many's ever seen It? 'Course, you've all seen. There, looking right back, proved exactly the revelation was correct. (emphasis added) (WORKS.IS.FAITH.EXPRESSED_ SHREVEPORT.LA V-7 N-1 FRIDAY_ 65-1126, par 255)
Lets see the hands. And now, the "Life" Magazine picked it up. And I have the--the article here this morning in the "Life" Magazine there, of the show... Now, here it is, the same time I was there. See the pyramid or the Cloud? (emphasis added) (STANDING.IN.THE.GAP_ JEFF.IN V-6 N-7 SUNDAY_ 63-0623M, par 82)
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
33
Serious Problems
Now that we have a fairly clear understanding of what Mr. Branham says about the cloud, the reader is ripe to be introduced to the painful pile of problems created by his narrations of this incident. First and foremost, the stratospheric cloud over northern Arizona appeared in the evening of February 28 1963.3 Mr. Branham, Gene Norman and Fred Sothmann went hunting javelina on March the sixth through the ninth.2 This clearly indicates that the occurrence of the cloud happened first, then about a week later, Mr. Branham and his friends went on the hunting trip. Therefore, there exists no connection whatsoever between the hunting trip at Sunset Peak and the occurrence of the cloud. By giving this cloud story, Mr. Branham is attempting to set us off into some kind of weird time travel to connect two entirely different occurrences.
It is clear that Mr. Branham went on the hunting trip several days after the cloud occurrence. Yet he held up a picture of the February 28 cloud over Flagstaff and explicitly stated that he was standing right below it the day the picture was taken, while in real fact, the trip took place several days later. As the objective reader can already see, there is no connection whatsoever between Mr. Branham‘s hunting trip and the stratospheric cloud. This conclusion by itself is enough to show that Branham‘s claims about the cloud are not true, but as expected, some cognitive dissonance may be kicking in so I guess we‘ll have to table further proof to show that the cloud claim couldn‘t have been true.
The second equally painful problem with the cloud story is that there was no cloud at Sunset. I can‘t begin to explain how cheated I felt when I first learnt that there was never a cloud at Sunset when Branham and his friends were there, or at any other time. There‘s a huge discrepancy between the location of Sunset peak and the actual location of the stratospheric cloud. Reproduced below is Dr. James McDonald‘s write up in March 1963 regarding the cloud. The prophet likes referring to McDonald‘s work and in particular, the following article that appeared on Science magazine in April 1963, hence the reader is encouraged to examine the article carefully:
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
34
Science Magazine
19 April 1963 Vol. 140 No. 3564
Cover: Ring-shaped cloud seen at sunset on 28 February 1963 in northern Arizona and areas of nearby states. The height, as estimated from four photographs made in Tucson, Arizona, about 190 miles to the south of the cloud (which appeared overhead near Flagstaff), is about 35 kilometers. This photo was taken by Clarence E. Peterson of Bremerton, Washington, while he was looking almost due north from near Camp Verde, Arizona. The unusual nature of the cloud was evident to observers who noted its striking luminosity long after the sun had set at ground level. It was at least 11 kilometers higher than the upper limit of possible jet contrail formation, and was at least 5 kilometers higher than previously reported nacreous clouds of the arctic type. Its true nature is still unknown; more photos are being sought for triangulation purposes. See page 292.
Stratospheric Cloud over Northern Arizona
Abstract. An unusual ring-shaped cloud was widely observed over northern Arizona near sunset on 28 February 1963. From a large number of observers‘ reports it is known to have appeared overhead near Flagstaff, Arizona. From initial computations based on four photos taken in Tucson, 190 miles south of the cloud, its altitude was approximately 35 kilometers. The most distant observation reported was made 280 miles from the cloud. The cloud remained sunlit for 28 minutes after local sunset. Iridescence was noted by many
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
35
observers. Tentatively, the cloud may be regarded as similar to a nacreous cloud; but its unusually great height and unusually low altitude, plus its remarkable shape, suggest that it was a cloud of previously unrecorded type.
Near sunset, on 28 February 1963, a cloud of unusual configuration and coloration was observed in widely scattered localities in Arizona and some surrounding states. The cloud took the form of a large oval ring (clear in the middle) with the long axis running north and south (Fig. 1 and cover photograph, this issue). It remained brightly illuminated well after the sun had set on high cirrus clouds to the west. From Tucson, 190 miles to the south, its angular elevation appeared to be about 6 degrees. A rough computation of its height, based on sunset geometry, (1) made immediately after the cloud entered the earth‘s shadow, led me to appeal by press and radio for confirmatory reports in order to establish the approximate location and to secure descriptions from the largest possible number of other observers.
From approximately 150 reports, many communicated by persons well aware that they had seen a type of cloud unprecedented in years of sky watching, it was quickly established that the cloud lay overhead in the vicinity of Flagstaff, Arizona, that it exhibited iridescence of the sort associated with stratospheric nacreous clouds in the arctic (2,3), and that its internal structure was very peculiar.
To observers nearly underneath, the colors green and blue were visible, and a pinkish cast was noted at times. A fibrous texture, described by several independent observers as resembling a wood grain appearance, was present over much of its northern extent, but its southern end was denser and more cumuliform. Its overall shape was compared by some (ranchers) to a horseshoe or a horse collar if it was viewed from south; from the north it appeared as a closed loop with a long thin trail that could be seen extending northward, from the oval, and several observers in that sector compared its shape with that of a hangman‘s noose. The cloud was seen from distances as great as 280 miles (near Douglas, Arizona and Albuquerque, New Mexico, respectively).
Many observers reported a second cloud off to the northwest of the main cloud, with shape very much like
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
36
that of the main cloud, but only about a quarter as large. Correctness of these reports has been established from some of the first photographs that have come in from northern Arizona. The cloud was evidently moving generally south-eastward, though visual reports are in some conflict on this point; this point can only be resolved from further studies by triangulation.
By fortunate coincidence, the cloud appeared within a few tens of miles of the U.S. Weather Bureau radiosonde station at Winslow, Arizona, and a high-altitude sounding had been completed there only an hour before the appearance of the cloud. A jet stream lay almost directly under the cloud and over Flagstaff, and there were peak winds of 98 knots from the northwest occurring over Winslow at an altitude of about 11 kilometers. The radiosonde run terminated at the 13-millibar level of atmospheric pressure (about 29 km), where the temperature was -46 degrees C. There was very little direction shear in the Winslow wind sounding, a condition known to favor formation of mountain waves and believed to be conducive to nacreous clouds, at least in Scandinavia (2). It is possible, therefore, that the San Francisco Peaks just north of Flagstaff disturbed the flow so that wave motion was set up in the stratosphere, but this remains a conjecture, pending further study of reports of first appearance. Whereas some recent studies (4) suggest strong local stratospheric cooling as a prerequisite for the formation of nacreous clouds, the sounding at Winslow showed little departure from average temperature conditions in the lower and middle stratosphere.
Photogrammetric analysis of the four photographs known to have been taken in the Tucson area have yielded elevation angles of the near point ranging from 5.9 to 6.2 degrees. Because the exact range to the nearest point of the cloud is not yet known to better than 10 or 15 miles in 190 miles, the exact height cannot yet be determined. However, the cited elevation angles plus allowance for earth curvature give a cloud height of 35 kilometers, possibly a bit higher if the range to the near point proves to be greater than 190 miles. This height is distinctly greater than that of reported Scandinavian nacreous clouds. Photogrammetric heights obtained over many years by Stormer and others (2,3) are no higher than 30 kilometers, and the majority lie between 22 and 28 kilometers.
The estimated height of 35 kilometers rules out the possibility that the Flagstaff cloud could have been the condensation trail from a jet plane. The present American altitude record, made under the most favorable conditions directly above the home field by a Lockheed F-104 in 1959, is 103,395 feet (31.6 kilometers). Perhaps more conclusive is the fact that the upper limit of height for possible contrail formation (5) as indicated by the sounding from Winslow was just under 24 kilometers at the time of the cloud‘s appearance.
These preliminary indications mark the Flagstaff cloud of 28 February as a most unusual phenomenon of considerable meteorological interest. Requests for photographs, still being made at time of this writing, have already brought promises of photographs from a total of 16 sites reasonably well dispersed around Arizona, so fairly precise data on the cloud‘s height, shape, and dimensions should be obtainable by triangulation. A conflict between heights estimated from the Tucson photos and from sunset geometry is under study (the indicated height based on available reports of fadeout time is about 25 kilometers). Premature fadeout may have been due to cirrus clouds between the cloud and the ray tangency point, computed to lie at or very near Los Angeles.
The hydrodynamics of the field of vertical motion that produced such a toroidal cloud form are very puzzling. Present estimates give the closed oval a length of about 60 kilometers and a width of about 30 kilometers, with a ring cross section of perhaps 3 to 4 kilometers in the horizontal. I am not aware that a cloud of such form and size has been observed at any level within the atmosphere before.
Interesting questions about the source of the requisite water vapor are posed by its unprecedented altitude. (6)
James E. McDonald
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
37
Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson
References and Notes
1. S.K. Mitra, The Upper Atmosphere (Asiatic Society, Calcutta, ed.2, 1952). 2. E. Hesstvedt, Geofys. Publikasjoner Norske Videnskaps. Akad. Oslo 20, No. 10 (1959). 3. A. Y. Driving, Bull. Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R. Geophys. Ser. 3, English Transl. (1959), pp. 279-286. 4. Y. Gotaas, Geofys. Publikasjoner Norske Videnskaps Akas. Oslo 22, No. 4 (1961); A. Y.Driving and A. I. Smirnova, Bull. Acad. Sci. U.S.S.R. 5. H. Appleman, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 34, 14 (1953). 6. I thank Leon Salanave for alerting me to the cloud when it became visible in the Tucson sky and for further technical assistance, and I. E. Daniels and C. E. Peterson for permission to reproduce their photographs. The cooperation of the numerous Arizonians submitting reports is gratefully acknowledged. Supported by the Office of Naval Research under contract NR 082-164.
20 March 1963
At this point it‘s important to indicate that this was just one among several reports that Dr. McDonald subsequently published. Therefore the questions left unanswered in the above article were the subjects of further investigation – and as further reports will show, a lot more was discovered about the cloud that was not known at the time the above article was written and hence the ‗interesting questions‘ left unanswered by Dr. McDonald should not be used to support the idea that the stratospheric cloud was a miracle cloud. Further reports by the same scholar will be introduced shortly that will shed light on what happened that day.
At this juncture I would like to address the impossibility of Mr. Branham being anywhere near the location of the cloud. The prophet claims that he was hunting at Sunset Peak and that he was standing right below the cloud, as shown previously in provided quotes, when the famous cloud photograph was taken. Let the author point the reader to the above article on Science magazine by Dr. McDonald that clearly states that the cloud appeared overhead at Flagstaff, Arizona which is over 320 kilometers northwest of sunset peak, where Mr. Branham was allegedly on a hunting trip!
From approximately 150 reports, many communicated by persons well aware that they had seen a type of cloud unprecedented in years of sky watching, it was quickly established that the cloud lay overhead in the vicinity of Flagstaff, Arizona, that it exhibited iridescence of the sort associated with stratospheric nacreous clouds in the arctic (2,3), and that its internal structure was very peculiar. (Dr. James McDonald, Stratospheric Cloud over Northern Arizona, Science magazine, 19 April 1963 )
Therefore if you have always thought that the cloud ascended from where Branham was at Sunset peak until it attained the previously unrecorded elevation high up where it formed the face of Jesus, no one would blame you since this is what Mr. Branham indicates in his sermons. But it‘s high time you now acquaint yourself with the truth, now that it has been laid bare.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
38
The map of the state of Arizona is displayed below. It shows the enormous distance between where Mr. Branham was allegedly hunting (one week later), Sunset Peak, and the location over which the cloud appeared overhead (Flagstaff).
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
39
Further, examine the following quote:
―And now, the ―Life‖ Magazine picked it up. And I have the–the article here this morning in the
―Life‖ Magazine there, of the show… Now, here it is, the same time I was there. See the
pyramid or the Cloud? I was standing just below this.‖ (STANDING.IN.THE.GAP_ JEFF.IN
V-6 N-7 SUNDAY_ 63-0623M, par 82)
The photographs that Life magazine furnished us with, referred to above by Mr. Branham and
displayed below, were pictures of the stratospheric cloud that appeared over Flagstaff. Mr.
Branham in the above quote says he was standing right below that cloud. Mr. Branham on the
other hand has explicitly told us that he was at Sunset Peak far to the south this day. So this begs
the obvious question, how could he be over 320 kilometers from the cloud yet still be standing
below it? Mr. Branham is now insulting the intelligence of his audience.
In order to leave no doubt whatsoever in the reader‘s mind that the cloud was not at Sunset Peak
where Branham was, but at Flagstaff, over 320 km to the north, we will visit the photographs that
appeared on the May 17 issue of Life magazine and examine what was recorded below the
photographs:
Life magazine equipped us with important information that we may use to determine the location
of the cloud that evening. At 6.10 pm it was photographed north east of Prescott, at 6.15 pm it
was photographed north of Phoenix and at 6.30 pm it was photographed west north West of
Winslow. Flagstaff indeed is located north east of Prescott, north of Phoenix and North West of
Winslow. No photographs, eye witness accounts, or calculations of the cloud‘s movement places
it at Mr. Branham‘s hunting location where he says the cloud was. Once more we have
overwhelming proof that debunks Mr. Branham‘s claim that the cloud was with him at Sunset
Peak, over 320 kilometers to the South.
There‘s a question that might pop up in your mind soon if it hasn‘t already: what if the cloud did
indeed originate from Sunset Peak at sunrise as Mr. Branham claims, then it travelled northwards
and appeared over Flagstaff near and after the time of the setting of the sun? The hypothesis of
the Sunset Peak to Flagstaff cloud movement has to be discarded immediately, for this simple
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
40
reason: the cloud‘s path was observed and recorded. In Dr. McDonald‘s report entitled Status of the Investigation of the Northern Arizona Stratospheric Cloud of February 28 1963, which will be introduced to the reader shortly, the scholar indicates preliminary reports about the cloud‘s motion:
―Preliminary analysis of the McSpadden photos from Lordsburg indicate an eastward cloud drift speed of 95 mph for the upper limit, and 77 mph for the lower limit‖ (Dr. McDonald, Status of the Investigation of the Northern Arizona Stratospheric Cloud of February 28 1963.)
From Dr. McDonald‘s report, we may demonstrate this eastward motion on the map of Arizona so that we may realize that there is no way the cloud could have originated from Sunset Peak. Examine the following map. The brown lines indicate the general direction of the wind and of the cloud that evening. It‘s also important to note that the ‗mystery cloud‘ was moving eastward because it was obeying the wind direction that was carrying it towards that direction, hence the idea that God was miraculously taking the cloud on a tour of Arizona to his desired positions at different times of the day is infeasible. The cloud was obeying wind direction as has been demonstrated by Dr. James McDonald.
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
41
This speed and direction is critical in showing that the cloud could not have originated from Sunset Peak. If the cloud was travelling due east at 208 kilometers per hour, this means that two to three hours before the cloud was photographed travelling over Flagstaff, the cloud was not even within the state of Arizona – it was in California, to the west. The possibility of the cloud hovering low at Sunset Peak and then ascending and finally travelling to Flagstaff is clearly shattered. Alas, Branham has been left without a cloud. Message apologists still try to find him one, and that‘s why we‘ll provide even more information about all this.
How Mr. Branham Learnt about the Cloud
It might interest you to know that Mr. Branham never mentioned anything about the cloud until it was reported on Life and Science magazines, much later. As a matter of fact, he preached several sermons after he apparently experienced the cloud phenomenon. What follows is a list of all the sermons that Mr. Branham preached after the supposed encounter with the angels at Sunset Peak on February 28 1963. He makes no mention of the cloud whatsoever:
1. ABSOLUTE.A_ HOUSTON.TX MONDAY_ 63-0304
2. FIRST.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN MONDAY_ 63-0318
3. SECOND.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN TUESDAY_ 63-0319
4. THIRD.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN WEDNESDAY_ 63-0320
5. FOURTH.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN THURSDAY_ 63-0321
6. FIFTH.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN FRIDAY_ 63-0322
7. SIXTH.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN SATURDAY_ 63-0323
8. SEVENTH.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN SUNDAY_ 63-0324E
One might argue that his silence about the cloud during these sermons is not proof of its non occurrence. Maybe it happened – it‘s just that he talked to no one about it – as uncharacteristic of him as this would be. But is this really this case? Let‘s examine this scenario. During this particular hunting trip at Sunset Peak, Mr. Branham also mentions an occurrence at Sabino Canyon (located within the same forest as Sunset Peak) during which he held the King‘s sword. These two events happened the same day according to Mr. Branham, there‘s no mistake about that:
I saw seven angels come. Didn't "Life" Magazine pack it, just a fog of It floated across here twenty-seven miles high and thirty miles across. Is not Fred Sothmann and these others, Gene Norman and them setting back there, stood right there when them seven Angels appeared right there on the hill? It shook the hills for miles around like that. There stood seven Angels and throwed a sword in a hand and said, "Go home and open these Seven Seals that are given." (EASTER.SEAL_ PHOENIX.AZ V-2 N-6 SATURDAY_ 65-0410, par 230)
Let the author now point the reader to one of Mr. Branham‘s accounts of the very same Sunset Peak hunting trip where the angels appeared as usual, formed the ―V‖ shaped constellation as usual, turned him eastward as usual, the sword is placed in his hands as usual. Here it is:
Now, I went up in the canyon, and I climbed way as high as I could go, and I--I--I asked the Lord, while setting up in there, what all this meant and so forth. I was kinda bothered and didn't know just what to do.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
42
And so, while I was praying, and strange thing happened. I--I--I want to be honest. Now, I could've fallen asleep. It could've been like a trance, or it could've been a--a vision. I'm more less inclined to believe that it was a vision that... I had my hands out saying, "Lord, what does this blast mean, and what does these seven Angels in a constellation of--of the pyramid, picking me up from off the ground and turning eastward: what does it mean?"
I was standing there in prayer, and something happened. And now, something fell in my hand. Now, I know if you don't understand spiritual things, it may seem very strange. But something struck in my hand; and when I looked, it was a sword. And the handle was made of pearl, the prettiest pearl I ever seen. And the--the guard (you know, where I guess, it's to keep your hands from being lanced, you know, while you're--the--the people were dueling) was gold. And the saber's blade wasn't too long, but it was just razor sharp, and it was glistening silver. And it was the prettiest thing I ever seen. It just fit my hand exactly, and I was holding it. I said, "Isn't that pretty?" I looked at it, and I thought, "But you know, I always afraid of a sword." I was kind of glad that I lived out of the days that they used them, because I--I'm afraid of a knife. And so I--I thought, "What would I do with that?"
And while holding it in my hand, a voice from somewhere said, "That is the King's sword." And then it left me (BREACH.THE_ JEFF.IN SUNDAY_ 63-0317E, from par 9)
But why am I pointing you towards this particular account? The above sermon was delivered on March 17 1963. All details of the Mt. Sunset hunting trip are present except one – the cloud! (You‘re free to read the entire sermon and verify that the cloud was not mentioned at all during the sermon.) Why would he leave out the salient occurrence of that whole experience – the formation of the cloud which then proceeded to form the face of Jesus while in the stratosphere – while describing this incident – if it indeed happened during this hunting trip?
Why are all prior accounts of this hunting trip lacking the cloud story? The answer is obvious, simple and open for all to see: he had not learnt about the cloud. A majority of the public, including Mr. Branham, never learnt about the cloud until the story was featured on Science magazine on April 19 1963, and again on Life magazine on May 17 1963. After this story of the unexplained cloud hit the media on these magazines (which Mr. Branham likes referring to), it also conveniently found its way into Mr. Branham‘s hunting trip. The famous cloud that allegedly forms the face of Jesus was published in these magazines – that‘s where Branham came across them. Mr. Branham never talked about the ‗appearance of Jesus in the clouds‘ until after these magazines ran the story. After these publications of the ‗mystery‘ cloud on Science and Life magazines, Mr. Branham‘s accounts of this hunting trip are inundated with stories about the stratospheric cloud:
1. STANDING.IN.THE.GAP_ JEFF.IN V-6 N-7 SUNDAY_ 63-0623M
2. LORD.JUST.ONCE.MORE_ HOT.SPRINGS.AR V-20 N-10 FRIDAY_ 63-0628A
3. CHRIST.IS.THE.MYSTERY_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-7 SUNDAY_ 63-0728
4. PERSEVERANT_ CHICAGO.IL V-21 N-4 FRIDAY_ 63-0802
5. SHALOM_ PHOENIX.AZ V-22 N-1 SUNDAY_ 64-0119
6. RECOGNIZING.YOUR.DAY_ JEFF.IN V-5 N-1 SUNDAY_ 64-0726M
7. MARRIAGE.AND.DIVORCE_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-13 SUNDAY_ 65-0221M
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
43
8. RISING.OF.THE.SUN_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-12 SUNDAY_ 65-0418M
9. CHOOSING.OF.A.BRIDE_ LA.CA V-2 N-28 THURSDAY_ 65-0429E
10. SPIRITUAL.FOOD.IN.DUE.SEASON_ JEFF.IN V-8 N-7 SUNDAY_ 65-0718E
11. WHAT.IS.THE.ATTRACTION?_ JEFF.IN V-8 N-8 SUNDAY_ 65-0725E
12. WORKS.IS.FAITH.EXPRESSED_ SHREVEPORT.LA V-7 N-1 FRIDAY_ 65-1126
13. TRYING.TO.DO.GOD.A.SERVICE_ SHP.LA V-7 N-2 SATURDAY_ 65-1127B
14. RAPTURE.THE_ YUMA.AZ V-5 N-14 SATURDAY_ 65-1204
To the objective reader, all logic debunks the supposed connection between Mr. Branham and the stratospheric cloud that appeared over northern Arizona on February 28 1963.
Second Cloud
There is another problem that arises out of Mr. Branham‘s explanation of the cloud. According to the above report by Dr. McDonald, there was another cloud, identical to the original one - that appeared that day:
―Many observers reported a second cloud off to the northwest of the main cloud, with shape very much like that of the main cloud, but only about a quarter as large. Correctness of these reports has been established from some of the first photographs that have come in from northern Arizona. The cloud was evidently moving generally south-eastward, though visual reports are in some conflict on this point; this point can only be resolved from further studies by triangulation.‖ (Dr. James McDonald, Stratospheric Cloud over Northern Arizona, Science Magazine, 19 April 1963)
Mr. Branham gives no explanation of this second cloud but going by the explanation of the other cloud – that it was Jesus – we can only be left wondering who the other cloud might have been. There was nothing supernatural about these stratospheric clouds that appeared over Flagstaff that evening, as we shall see shortly.
Angels? Jesus? Fog?
Now that we have established that there was no connection whatsoever between Branham and the unusual cloud, we may now explore further ludicrousness behind his explanations of this cloud. Mr. Branham claims a lot of things about the February 28 1963 Northern Arizona stratospheric cloud. But the horrifically different things he claims the cloud was are particularly interesting. From the quotes displayed in this chapter, at different points he claims that the cloud:
 Was a group of angels
 Was mist and fog
 Was Jesus
No matter how much you stretch your imagination, how can a physical entity be an angel, a fog and Jesus at the same time? Even if you give a leeway for this ludicrous claim and assert that they were angels to begin with; who turned into fog and later turned into Jesus, how come over 80 photographs of the cloud depict a physical entity that didn‘t change form whatsoever?
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
44
All in all, the claim that fatally shatters Branham‘s cloud explanation is his claim that the cloud was Jesus:
Well, if you'll turn the picture like this and look (and you can probably see it from the audience), it's Christ. See His eyes looking here just as perfect as it could be, wearing the white wig of supreme Deity and Judge of all heavens and earth? Can you see His eyes, nose, His mouth? Just turn the picture from this (the way they had it), this a-way, the way it's supposed to be. And you... Can you see it? He is supreme Judge; there's none other but Him. And that is a perfect identification again, a vindication that this Message is the truth. It is true. And making Him, not a third person, but the only Person with the white...
See, you see the dark, His face, His beard, and His eyes? And notice, He's looking; from Him comes this Light shining on the right-hand side to which He's looking to. And on the cross that's where He looked, to the right, where He pardoned the sinner. In the light of His resurrection we still go forth in His Name. (RISING.OF.THE.SUN_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-12 SUNDAY_ 65-0418M, par 15, 16)
Examine the photograph below that Mr. Branham is referring to that appeared on the May 17 1963 issue of Life magazine. The picture has been rotated like Branham instructed us to:
It is difficult to see any human nose, mouth or eyes in the above cloud photograph that Mr. Branham was pointing us towards, unless the observer has very serious eye sight problems or is under heavy medication, because there are none. In order to verify this, circulate this picture amongst non Message believers and ask them what they see in the cloud and they‘ll point you towards nothing. The general outline formed by the cloud may be indeed of a human face (albeit a much disfigured one) but what physical features of a human face are visible in the above photograph? It‘s not a difficult question: we do not expect to find human eyes and noses in a 30 mile-wide cloud, and even a child knows that not everything that resembles an eye or a nose is an eye or a nose.
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
45
A picture designed and used by Message believers to demonstrate that the cloud was Jesus
The actual Jesus
Mr. Branham does not claim that the cloud formed an outline of the face of Jesus in the above quote; he says that literally, the cloud was Jesus. He even points to the physical features of his face such as his nose, eyes and mouth. The prophet claims that the cloud was Jesus, literally. Indeed, these quotes are used in the Message to affirm that Christ‘s second coming has already taken place.
Examining reports from various media publications such as the May 17 1963 issue of Life magazine, we find that the cloud was about 42 kilometers (26 miles) in height and about 48 kilometers (30 miles) wide. Therefore by claiming that the cloud was Jesus, Mr. Branham is telling you that Jesus had a face that is 42 kilometers wide and 48 kilometers long. Yet the Jesus Christ described in the Bible was a person of normal size. Did you ever stop to think about that? Pray tell, how on earth is a 30-mile wide cloud supposed to be a man?
How did a person with a face that was 42 kilometers long manage to: ride a normal sized donkey when getting into Jerusalem, fit into normal sized buildings such as the court buildings he attended just before his crucifixion, board normal sized boats where he calmed a storm – and even more absurd – how were the authorities able to apprehend a giant that was more than a hundred kilometers tall (if the head over Flagstaff alone was 48 kilometers long) and how on earth did Mary and Joseph manage to raise a baby that was normal sized at birth but more than a hundred kilometers tall at 33? Once again, and even more severely, Mr. Branham is insulting the intelligence of his audience!
To emphasize what we earlier saw, not everything that resembles a face or an eye or a nose is a face or an eye or a nose. The photograph that shows Jesus‘ face is just one of 80 photographs of the cloud that were submitted. All other photographs do not fair any better in showing Jesus‘ face. Reading from McDonald‘s article on the Science magazine presented above, we learn the following:
―Its overall shape was compared by some (ranchers) to a horseshoe or a horse collar if it was viewed from south; from the north it appeared as a closed loop with a long thin trail that could be seen extending northward, from the oval, and several observers in that sector compared its shape with that of a hangman‘s noose.‖ (Dr. James McDonald, Stratospheric Cloud over Northern Arizona, Science Magazine, 19 April 1963).
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
46
The cloud took different shapes when viewed from different directions. The cloud photograph that supposedly forms the ‗face of Jesus‘ was taken by C. E. Peterson of Bremerton, Washington, from just one of over tens of positions from which photographs of the cloud were taken. If indeed the cloud was the ‗face of Jesus‘, I‘d like a Branhamite to come forward and inform us why the ‗face‘ changed its shape numerous times – Since we all know solids don‘t behave like gases. Where is the face of Jesus on the following three photos (from the same issue of Life magazine) of that very same cloud, or to which direction should we turn them in order to see it, or, from which perspective are we seeing the face of Jesus?
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
47
The Branham family together with Voice of God Recordings like picking up where Branham left off in insulting people‘s intelligence. Having fully come to terms with the big problems posed by Branham‘s claims about the cloud, they decided to change the story. In the June 1992 issue of her magazine, Only Believe, Rebekah Branham Smith, William Branham eldest daughter, wrote that indeed the cloud did not appear to Branham at Mt. Sunset – and to try and fix the problem – said that Branham didn‘t say he was on the hunting trip when the cloud appeared. She added that her father saw a vision that he would go on the hunting trip several days later – despite the numerous quotes in which Branham says that the cloud appeared during his hunting trip. Why do they choose to engage in this kind of trickery? Examine these quotes: And I have the--the article here this morning in the "Life" Magazine there, of the show... Now, here it is, the same time I was there. See the pyramid or the Cloud? I was standing just below this. And there... See the distinctive Angel on the right hand side? See the pointed wing of It? Just exactly what was said. And here's interview of Mexico and different places from where they took the picture. (emphasis added) (STANDING.IN.THE.GAP_ JEFF.IN V-6 N-7 SUNDAY_ 63-0623M, par 82) And there the--the "Life" magazine packed the article of it, this great flame going up into the air thirty miles high, twenty-seven miles across, and they said they couldn't make out what is was, don't know yet. And men setting right here in this building tonight was standing right there with me when it happened, just exactly the way it said. (emphasis added) (CHOOSING.OF.A.BRIDE_ LA.CA V-2 N-28 THURSDAY_ 65-0429E, par 188) They didn't know what It was. There's a Cloud hanging, twenty-six miles high. That's fifteen miles, or twenty, above even where vapor's at. They don't know what it's all going about, and they're trying to investigate It. And there, right under It, I was standing. (emphasis added) (LORD.JUST.ONCE.MORE_ HOT.SPRINGS.AR V-20 N-10 FRIDAY_ 63-0628A, par 42) Branham states categorically that he was standing under the cloud whose photograph appeared on Life magazine. Yet we now know that there was no cloud at Sunset and that Branham was not even hunting on that day. And above all, we now know the origin of the allegedly ‗supernatural‘ cloud that appeared over Flagstaff. Here‟s what happened
The stratospheric cloud over Northern Arizona was not a supernatural one. Dr James McDonald discovered that on that day (February 28 1963), the Air Force deliberately destroyed a secret satellite and they launched it aboard a TAT (Thrust Augmented Thor) rocket at Vandenberg Air Force Base in the neighboring state of California. The cloud, Dr. McDonald came to conclude,
The Branham family continues to give rise to more Message believers. I am yet to hear of a single Branham taking a stand against the falsehoods of the Message. We‘re now seeing the third-generation Branhamites in the Branham family going round the world propagating their grandfather‘s claims. I have shaken hands with William Branham‘s grandson, Isaac, and heard him ferociously defend the Message. It could also be that they do the math and find that it would be very selfish of them to destroy the family cash till by speaking against the Message. I am always very curious about this.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
48
was an aftermath of that detonation. The Air Force has since declassified the launch history of Vandenberg Air Force Base and it is freely available from various websites.4 By examining the report it‘s clear that indeed there was launch activity on that day:
Let the author now point the reader to a progress report of the investigation by Dr. James McDonald of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the University of Arizona at Tucson, entitled Status of Investigation of the Northern Arizona Stratospheric Cloud of February 28, 1963, published on May 31, 1963. Please obtain and read the full report for yourself. This should help you understand why McDonald‘s work has been used by Message believers to propagate the lie that the cloud was supernatural. This was a progress report and not a final report. Reproduced below is a section of that report:
V. A possible explanation - a Vandenberg AFB rocket explosion.
A. Thor booster explosion.
A search of West Coast newspapers for the 28th disclosed a brief note on a intentional destruction of a military-satellite launch booster sometime on the 28th. Further information was found in the March 11, 1963, issue of Missiles and Rockets, which contained the following item: The Air Force deliberately destroyed a secret satellite, believed to be of the Discoverer series, after launching it aboard the souped up Thor Feb. 28 from Vandenberg AFB. All four motors were ignited at launch, but deviation from the programmed trajectory forced safety officials to destroy the booster before payload separation. The thrust-augmented Thor (TAT) is a liquid-fueled Thor with three Thiokol solid rockets spaced around the Thor case.
This was the combination‘s first test. It became essential to find the time of this detonation and to explore further details bearing on the cloud, so both by direct inquiry and by inquiry
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
49
through the Office of
Naval Research in Pasadena, further information was sought. Mr. E. E. Clary, Chief Scientist at Vandenberg, has very kindly provided unclassified information on this flight. The booster was destroyed at an altitude of 146,000 ft, almost directly overhead (but a bit south) of Vandenberg AFB at 1352 PST. As soon as this information was received, it appeared to offer the first solid clue as to the Flagstaff cloud‘s origin. The altitude at detonation was close to the photogrammetrically estimated cloud altitude, and the time of detonation made it necessary to consider very seriously the possibility that the Flagstaff cloud was some aftermath of the detonation. A crucial question was whether the time interval between the detonation over Vandenberg and the passage of the cloud over Flagstaff would match photogrammetrically estimated cloud-drift speed and/or other independent wind-speed observations. Taking 1840 MST as the time of passage over Flagstaff, the 1452 MST ( = 1352 PST) detonation time implies a hypothetical drift-time of 3 hours and 48 minutes. The airline distance to Vandenberg from Flagstaff is 510 miles, so the minimum mean drift speed required to associate these two events is very nearly 135 mph. This required drift speed is substantially larger than Schley‘s roughly estimated 110 mph, and even further from the 77-95 mph estimated from the Lordsburg photos.
Thus the agreement with respect to drift speed seemed rather poor, even though the height agreement between detonation and cloud seemed very encouraging. It was clearly necessary to seek further wind data, so inquiry was made concerning possible observational data from the Meteorological Rocket Network.
B. Rocket wind-data.
The two nearest rocket-wind observation points happen to be rather well located to indicate winds along the trajectory that might have carried some explosion aftermath from Vandenberg to Flagstaff: One station is at Pt. Mugu, Calif., and the next nearest one is at White Sands, N. M. Queries were sent to both stations. White Sands sent a Judi sounding rocket up at 0800MST on 28 February, about 10 hours before the Flagstaff passage. At 140,000 ft. the winds were 109 mph from WSW; at 150,000 ft. the winds were 97 mph from WSW. The following day, March 1, at 1215 MST, White Sands launched a Loki II sounding rocket that indicated winds of just over 90 mph from WSW at both 140,000 and 150,000 ft. No sounding was available from Pt. Mugu on the 28th; but an Arcas launched at 0800 PST on March 1 indicated winds of 127 mph from the west at 140,000 ft. and 112 mph from the west at 150,000 at that time.
The rocket-sounding winds come tantalizingly close to fitting the hypothesis that the Flagstaff cloud was some byproduct of the Vandenberg detonation; yet the agreement is not quite close enough to be conclusive. The White Sands winds of the morning of the 28th seem significantly too low to match the required drift speed of 135 mph; but they agree rather well with the maximum cloud-drift speed estimated from the Lordsburg photos. It is regrettable that no Pt. Mugu winds were measured on the 28th. They would have shown whether the winds at that upwind location were enough higher than those at White Sands to imply a mean drift speed of around 135 mph. (A
West Coast speed of something like 160 mph would be needed to yield the required mean
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
50
of 135 mph, if we take the White Sands 0800 speed of 109 mph as typical of the stratosphere over Flagstaff near 140,000 to 150,000 ft. at 1840 MST on the 28th.)
Although Mr. Willis Webb of the White Sands missile Range emphasized, in phone conversation on the problem, that variations above or below measured winds at times between observations might well approach 20 per cent of the measured values at these levels, it remains uncertain whether one may concluded that the Flagstaff cloud was due to the detonation at Vandenberg. It is necessary to seek still further crosschecks.
C. Unsettled questions.
At this writing, further inquiries are being sent to the Chief Scientist of the Pacific Missile Range, to whom I have been directed by Vandenberg AFB for further information. It is hoped that phototheodolite movie records of the detonation may exist and may yield data on the initial drift speed and drift direction of the explosion cloud. Also, the initial configuration of the explosion cloud will be sought, along with information on possible presence of a side-explosion to the west of the main explosion. The latter item bears on the interesting problem of the secondary cloud west of the main one at Flagstaff. Many photos and still more letter descriptions establish the presence of a smaller, roughly similar cloud some twenty miles west of the main ring. This cloud was definitely seen to form and to dissipate during the period of prominent visibility of the main cloud. Photos show it to have a more pear-shaped form than the main ring; and a short fish-tail formation existed at its northern extremity. It is difficult to see how a single detonation over Vandenberg could have also led to this secondary cloud. Mr. Clary, at Vandenberg, was fairly certain that no side explosions occurred; but this will be checked further.
In addition, information will be sought concerning the weight of liquid propellant still unburnt in the Thor at instant of detonation. This item of information will permit quantitative estimates to be made of the total water of combustion released in the explosion, as well as the heat release (for use in estimating buoyant circulation generation). These points, if they can be cleared up, may finally settle the question of whether the Flagstaff cloud can plausibly be identified as an aftermath of the Thor detonation over the California coast.
This document points us towards strong clues of what the origin of the stratospheric cloud could have been. But it also raises some questions on whether the real origin was the Vandenberg explosion. Therefore when you begin your research about this cloud, you‘ll find Message believers using this report to dispute the fact that the cloud‘s origin was the Vandenberg AFB explosion – but Dr. Mc Donald clearly states above that the unsettled questions would be ―checked further‖. In this same report he stated that he would ―publish no further progress reports‖. And luckily for Message believers who won‘t take the facts about this issue, he didn‘t. And after he found out that the cloud‘s origin was indeed Vandenberg AFB, he lost all interest in the matter. A simple visit or telephone call to the staff of the University of Arizona might fetch you some good confirmation of what Dr. McDonald concluded about this cloud.
There Was no Cloud on Mt. Sunset
51
Lastly, it might interest you to know that such clouds might have been a rare occurrence then, but they‘re not all that rare nowadays, and they therefore do not cause as much amusement among members of the public as they use to do then. Here‘s an eye witness testimony from a former Message believer, John Kennah:
During an investigation of the Cloud, Dr. James E. McDonald of the University of Arizona Institute of Atmospheric Physics learned that a series of test missiles were launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base on the coast north of Los Angeles, California in 1963. Several of those launches left trails in the sky similar to the one that appeared in the May 17, 1963 issue of LIFE magazine. Trails at the altitude of the Cloud are not visible during daylight hours because the sky is too bright for them to be seen (just as stars are not visible during daylight hours). When the sky is dark, these clouds are so high that they remain illuminated by the sun which shines directly on them (just as the sun continues to shine on the moon after sunset). This was a rare phenomenon in 1963 because missile tests were uncommon. When the clouds formed by the rockets began appearing, the public did not know what caused them. The formation of such clouds is now relatively common. I have seen this awesome phenomenon on at least four occasions during the past 8 years here in Tucson because of our close proximity to Vandenberg AFB and White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. It is a fantastic sight to see a brightly-lit cloud in a dark sky.5
To the objective reader, it‘s now clear that Branham has no cloud. As we saw earlier, there is no Message without a cloud for this simple reason: if Branham really believed that the cloud was Jesus, he was sincerely wrong, and this proves that there was nothing divine or accurate about the rest of his claims. If he deliberately conjured up the cloud story after reading about the ‗mystery‘ (as it was then) surrounding it, then he was an incredible liar. The final problem is even heavier: central to the beliefs of Branhamites is that Jesus came down to Branham on Mt. Sunset. They celebrate this event, with almost each and every Message church and home hanging the cloud picture on their walls. Yet there was no cloud at Sunset. This is the same event where he allegedly received the go-ahead to reveal the Seven Seals. Considering how much this one single event means to the Message, we are forced to repeat: there‘s no Message without a cloud, and there is no cloud. The big deception is now exposed.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
52
53
CHAPTER 4
Core Teachings of the Message Are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
What is originality? Undetected plagiarism.
WILLIAM RALPH INGE
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
54
In 1919, when Branham was a small boy, a Christian author known as Clarence Larkin wrote a book called The Book of Revelation.1 It covered almost all topics raised in the biblical book of Revelation: the Seven Church Ages, the Seven Seals, the Seven Trumpets, the Seven Personages, and so forth. At some point, Branham read Larkin‘s work and got many ideas. He borrowed Larkin‘s works and packaged them as his own when developing his core doctrines. He even literally copy-pasted materials from Larkin‘s book into his own book, An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages. He borrowed Larkin‘s ideas, and in many cases mutilated the original ideas into his own versions. Please take a break and obtain Clarence Larkin‘s book (it is now freely available on several sites on the web1) since it will be extremely useful as you go through this chapter.
Let‘s begin with the doctrine of the Seven Church Ages. William Branham preached sermons on this topic, and even wrote a book, An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, on the same, with the help of a man known as Lee Vayle. This unfortunate cluster has become a key reference book for Branhamite pastors all over the world. Yet the book is a product of plagiarism: the practice of presenting someone else‘s work as your own. It includes copying work from another author without referencing the material, leaving the reader to think that the author composed the material presented. The teachings of the entire Seven Church Ages doctrine were borrowed from Clarence Larkin.
What‘s painful about this particular act of plagiarism is the fact that Larkin‘s book was a result of very many years of studying the New Testament book of Revelation and indeed the entire Bible, yet Mr. Branham took his work and repackaged it in order to propagate his doctrinal assertions. It‘s also heart breaking when you consider that Mr. Branham knew a lot of people revered him as their true prophet and yet went ahead with the blatant perpetration of the lie that the things contained within that book were all revealed directly by God while in real fact he obtained many of the ideas from Clarence Larkin‘s book. As stated earlier, the author encourages the reader to obtain the two books and verify this claim. But for a start, examine the following two excerpts from the two books. Read what Larkin had to say about a particular heading (―His Eyes‖ for instance), then go on and read what Branham had to say about that similar heading. Go back and re-examine Larkin‘s work under the next heading, and read Branham‘s words similarly, and so forth.
A striking similarity is under the heading ―His Eyes‖ where Larkin ponders how ―Those eyes that had often been dimmed with human tears, and that wept at the grave of Lazarus” were ―pictured as burning with an "omniscient flame." Larkin‘s words are plagiarized by Branham under the same heading, where Branham states: ―Think of it. Those eyes that were once dimmed with tears of sorrow and pity. Those eyes that wept with compassion at the grave of Lazarus. Those eyes that saw not the evil of the murderers who hanged Him on a cross but in sorrow cried, "Father forgive them." Now those eyes are a flame of fire, the eyes of the Judge Who will
Core Teachings of the Message are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
55
recompence those who rejected Him.” As you examine the two books yourself you will unravel many other instances of plagiarism committed by Mr. Branham. Since Larkin wrote his book in 1919, long before Mr. Branham was literate enough to write a book, we can only conclude that he borrowed ideas from Larkin, many years later. Larkin, Clarence (1919) – Book of Revelation from Page 11: SEVENFOLD GLORY OF HIS PERSON 1. HIS "HEAD AND HIS HAIR." His "Head" and "Hair" were "WHITE LIKE WOOL," as "WHITE AS SNOW." Here there is a correspondence to the "Snow White Wig" worn by English judges. This description of Christ reminds us of Daniel's vision of the "ANCIENT OF DAYS," "whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the PURE WOOL." Dan. 7:9. Daniel refers three times to the "Ancient Of Days." In Chap. 7:13, he distinguishes between the "Son of Man" and the "Ancient of Days," but in verses 9 and 22 he associates the "Ancient of Days" with a "Throne of Judgment," and as God the Father has committed all judgment to the Son (John 5:22), and the Father and the Son are one, the title "Ancient Of Days" is used interchangeably. And as the title "Ancient of Days" is applied to the "Son of Man" (Christ) at the time He assumes the Judgeship (Dan. 7:9-10), which is not until after the Rapture of the Church, we have here additional corroborative proof that John's Vision belongs to the "Day of the Lord." The "White Hair" of the Son of Man refers to His ANTIQUITY, to His patriarchal dignity, not that His hair was made white by age, for the Eternal never grows old, but it bespeaks wisdom and experience, and the venerableness of His character. 2. HIS EYES. '"His Eyes were a FLAME OF FIRE." Those eyes that had often been dimmed with human tears, and that wept at the grave of Lazarus, are here pictured as burning with an "OMNISCIENT FLAME." How often when on the earth those eyes read the inner-most thoughts of men, and even soldiers quailed before His soul penetrating gaze, so when He sits as the Judge of men all things will be NAKED and OPEN before Him. 3. HIS FEET. "His Feet like unto fine BRASS, as if they BURNED IN A FURNACE." In that day those feet that trod the Via Dolorosa of suffering will be like unto INCANDESCENT BRASS, that shall tread and crush Antichrist and Satan when He comes to "Tread the WINE-PRESS of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." Rev. 19:15. 4. HIS VOICE.
"His Voice as the SOUND OF MANY WATERS." There is nothing more melodious or musical than the babbling brook, or more thunderous than the rush of the cataract over the falls, and there is nothing more fearful to the criminal than the words of the Judge as he passes sentence; but how terrifying will be the sentence when with a strong voice the Son of Man shall say in the Judgment
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
56
Day, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the Devil and his angels." Matt. 25:41.
5. HIS HAND.
"In His Right Hand SEVEN STARS."
We are told in verse 20, that the "Seven Stars" stand for the "ANGELS" of the "Seven Churches." These "Angels" are not angelic beings but the Messengers or Ministers of the churches. What a beautiful and solemn lesson is taught here. It is that the ministers of Christ derive their power and office from Him, and that He holds them in His hand. If they are false to Him, no one can deliver them from His power, and if they are true and loyal, no one can touch or molest, or do them harm.
6. HIS MOUTH.
"Out of His Mouth went a SHARP TWO-EDGED SWORD." While the "Sword of the Spirit" is the "Word of God" (Eph. 6:17), and the "Word of God" is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any TWO-EDGED SWORD, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow (the body), (Heb. 4:12), that is not the sword meant here.
The "Sword of the Spirit" is the Holy Spirit's SWORD, and He alone wields it. The sword meant here is the Sword of the Son of Man (Christ), and it is the "SWORD OF JUSTICE," for the Son of Man, out of whose mouth this sword comes, is the "White Horse Rider" of Rev. 19:11-15, "out of whose mouth goeth a SHARP SWORD, that with it He should smite the nations." And that sword, like the "Sword of the Spirit" will be TWO-EDGED also, for the protection of His people, and the destruction of His enemies. This is still further proof that John's vision of Christ was as He shall appear in the "DAY OF THE LORD."
7. HIS COUNTENANCE.
"His Countenance was as the SUN SHINETH IN HIS STRENGTH." This recalls to our memory His appearance on the Mount of Transfiguration when "His Face did shine AS THE SUN," Matt. 17:2. And we read of the New Jerusalem that the inhabitants thereof have no need of the SUN, for the LAMB is the Light thereof. Rev. 21:23. And when we recall that the Prophet Malachi tells us that when Jesus comes back He will be the SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS (Malachi 4:2), we see that John's vision of the Son of Man was as He shall appear at the Second Stage of His Return, the "Revelation." Thus we have in John's "Seven-Fold" description of the person of the "Glorified Son of Man" circumstantial or indirect evidence that John saw his vision of the Son of Man, not on a Sabbath Day (or the "Lord's Day" as we now call it), but was projected by the Holy Spirit forward into the "Day of the Lord" and saw Him as He will appear then as the Judge, and the coming "SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Clarence Larkin).
Branham, William (1964) – An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, Chapter Two:
THE SEVENFOLD GLORY OF HIS PERSON
Revelation 1:14-16, "His head and His hairs were white like wool, as white as snow; and His eyes were as a flame of fire. And His feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and His
Core Teachings of the Message are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
57
voice as the sound of many waters. And He had in His right hand seven stars: and out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and His countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength." How deeply moving and inspiring was the appearing of Jesus to John, who was in exile for the cause of the Word, and behold, the Living WORD now stands before him. What an illuminating vision, for every descriptive attribute has a significance. What a revelation of His glorious Being.
1.His Hair as White as Snow.
John first notices and mentions the whiteness of His hair. It was white, and as bright as snow. This was not because of His age. Oh, no. The brilliantly white hair does not signify age but experience, maturity, and wisdom. The Eternal One does not age. What is time to God? Time means little to God, but wisdom means much. It is as when Solomon called to God for wisdom to judge the people of Israel. Now He is coming, the Judge of all the earth. He will be crowned with wisdom. That is what the white and glistening hair signifies. See this in Daniel 7:9-14, "I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, Whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fiery flame, and His wheels as burning fire… …Even the world understands this symbology, for in ancient times the judge would appear and convene court, dressed in a white wig and a long robe that signified his complete authority (head to foot robe) to mete out justice.
2. His Eyes as Fire.
Think of it. Those eyes that were once dimmed with tears of sorrow and pity. Those eyes that wept with compassion at the grave of Lazarus. Those eyes that saw not the evil of the murderers who hanged Him on a cross but in sorrow cried, "Father forgive them." Now those eyes are a flame of fire, the eyes of the Judge Who will recompence those who rejected Him… …Those fiery flaming eyes of the Judge are even now recording the lives of all flesh. Running to and fro throughout the earth, there is nothing He does not know. He knows the desires of the heart and what each one intends to do. There is nothing hidden that shall not be revealed, for all things are naked before Him with Whom we have to do. Think of it, He knows even now what you are thinking…
3. The Feet of Brass.
…Those feet of brass will crush the enemy. They will destroy the anti-christ, the beast and the image and all that is vile in His sight. He will destroy the church systems that have taken His Name only to corrupt its brilliance and crush them along with the antichrist. All the wicked, the atheists, the agnostics, the modernists, the liberals, will all be there…
4. His Voice Was as the Sound of Many Waters.
…Have you ever thought how terrifying it is to a man drifting helplessly toward a cataract? Think now of that roar as he approaches his sure and certain doom. And just exactly like that is coming
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
58
the day of judgment when the roar of the multitude of voices condemns you for not having paid heed ere it was too late. Take heed this very hour. For at this moment your thoughts are being recorded in heaven. There your thoughts speak louder than your words. Like the Pharisee who claimed so much with his mouth, but not listening to the Lord, his heart became corrupt and evil until it was too late, even now this could be your last call to hear the Word and receive it unto eternal life. It will be too late when you approach the roar of the many voices of judgment and doom…
5. In His Right Hand Were Seven Stars.
"And He had in His right hand seven stars." Now of course we already know from verse twenty what the seven stars actually are. "And the mystery of the seven stars are the angels (messengers) of the seven churches." Now we couldn't make a mistake here on any account, as He interprets it for us. These seven stars are the messengers to the seven successive church ages. They are not called by name. They are just set forth as seven, one to each age…
6. The Two-edged Sword.
"And out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword." In Hebrews 4:12, "For the Word of God is quick, and powerful and sharper than any two- edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." Out of His mouth went the sharp two-edged sword which is the WORD OF GOD. Revelation 19:11-16, "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and He that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He doth judge and make war…
7. His Face Like The Sun.
"And His countenance was as the sun shineth in its strength." Matthew 17:1-13, "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart. And was transfigured before them: and His face did shine as the sun, and His raiment was white as the light…
…In Revelation 21:23, "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." This is the New Jerusalem. The Lamb will be in that city, and because of His presence, there will be no light needed. The sun won't rise and shine there, for He is the Sun and Light thereof, Himself. The nations that come into it will walk in His light. Aren't you happy that day is upon us? John saw that day coming…‖ …He's the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star. He's the fairest of ten thousand to my soul. Yes, that great day is ready to break and the Sun of Righteousness will arise with healing in His wings. (William M Branham).
This is just a single example; provided to you so that you may understand what Branham was doing with Larkin‘s material. We notice that Branham would read what Larkin had to say then would go ahead and copy it and subsequently add his thoughts in order to insert the doctrines
Core Teachings of the Message are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
59
that Larkin did not write about, such as denunciation of the trinity. This pattern of plagiarism is widespread in many parts of Branham‘s book. In many parts, Branham‘s book is indistinguishable from Larkin‘s. I encourage you to objectively investigate this for yourself. This is a big injustice to Larkin and the years of effort he put into writing his book. The „History‟ of the Seven Church Ages
To Message believers, the doctrine of the Seven Church Ages, summarized by this famous diagram, is one of the greatest revelations that God has sent to this last age through his prophet, William Branham, who brought it to us. There are two major problems with all this though – first, there was no revelation – Branham read this stuff from a book; and secondly, the idea was not from God, it was from Clarence Larkin. This famous author went through the book of Revelation and affirmed that the ―character‖ of the churches in Asia Minor described in the second chapter of Revelation matched the ―character‖ of the church through various periods in history. Other Christian authors, especially those in the camp commonly referred to as ―dispensationalists‖, have done the same, but Branham copied Larkin‘s timelines.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
60
Clarence Larkin
(From The Book of Revelation, 1919)
William Branham (From Church Ages sermons and books, 1960 onwards)
Ephesus
70 A.D. to 170 A.D.2
53 A.D. to 170 A.D.3
Smyrna
170 A.D. to 312 A.D.4
170 A.D. to 312 A.D.3
Pergamos
312 A.D. to 606 A.D.5
312 A.D. to 606 A.D.3
Thyatira
606 A.D. to 1520 A.D.6
606 A.D. to 1520 A.D.3
Sardis
1520 A.D. to 1750 A.D.7
1520 A.D. to 1750 A.D.3
Philadelphia
1750 A.D. to 1900 A.D.8
1750 A.D. to 1906 A.D.3
Laodicea
1900 onwards 9
1906 onwards 3
After copying Larkin‘s timeline, Branham at least made his own contribution – he looked for people he could fit into the ages as messengers, probably to set himself up as the final messenger. It becomes interesting to ask ourselves whether what Branham added was historically correct. Therefore from this point onwards, we will be examining the parts of the book that Branham wrote himself, not the parts he plagiarized from Larkin‘s work. Since Branham says that he studied works from unbiased historians when compiling his work, then what he presents should be historically accurate, even more so when he is receiving the literature through direct revelation from God – as he states.
Since this study was to be the most serious one I had ever undertaken up to this time, I sought God for many days for the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Then only did I read the Scriptures on the Church Ages and delve into the many church histories written by the most unbiased historians that I could find. (EPHESIAN.CHURCH.AGE - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.3, par 66)
It is therefore very discouraging to find out that what Branham tells us in that book is a concoction of historically inaccurate accounts. He did not carry out sufficient research before he decided to assign these messengers to his arrangement. To begin with, he tells us things about
Core Teachings of the Message are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
61
these ‗messengers‘ that totally contradict the history he claimed to study; and secondly, several of these ‗messengers‘ sharply contradict the criteria he sets out for arriving at each one of them. Branham looked for six messengers that he could fit into the ages most likely so that he could set himself up as the seventh messenger. This was quite easy for some of the ‗ages‘ where we had a well known prominent Christian, such as Paul‘s and Martin Luther‘s age. But then it gets tough in some of the ages where a single prominent Christian is hard to identify – and this is where we catch Mr. Branham inventing his own history. For example, his descriptions of the ‗messengers‘ Irenaeus, Martin, Columba and Luther are quite bizarre. Irenaeus - Smyrnean Church Age (A.D. 170 to A.D. 312) From chapter four of An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, the Smyrnean age, under ‗The Messenger‘, this is what Mr. Branham had to say about Irenaeus, the messenger he assigned to the second church age: ―Using our God given rule of choosing the messenger for each age, we unhesitatingly declare that Irenaeus was exalted by the Lord to that position.‖ ―He was militant against any form of organization. Also, his life history, wherein he served the Lord, was one of much manifestation in the Holy Spirit; and the Word was taught with unusual clarity and conformity to its original precepts.‖ ―He saw the danger of any kind of organized brotherhood among the elders, pastors, etc. He stood solidly for a unified, Spirit-filled, gift-manifesting local church.‖ ―Thus with his strict adherence to the Word, his wonderful understanding of Scripture, and the attendance of the power of God upon that ministry, he is the right choice for the age.‖ (Par 111) Anyone who has read about early church history will inform you that the father of organization in the church was none other than Irenaeus himself. It is simply false to say the least to say that he was militant against any form of organization. Since the prophet says very little about the man Irenaeus, we should visit history and establish the real story behind this great theologian who the Catholics regard as one of their most important church fathers. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the exact date of his birth is still debated, with some placing his birth between the years 115 and 125 and some between 130 and 142. Irenaeus was a hearer of Polycarp, who is thought to have been in turn a disciple of John the Evangelist. His most famous work is Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) which is an attack on Gnosticism which was a strong threat against the Church at the time. By reading through Against Heresies, we gain a valuable understanding of his stand on many scriptural topics.
It‘s famously recorded that during the persecution of Marcus Aurelius, Irenaeus was based at the church of Lyons as a priest. He was sent to Pope Eleutherius by the city‘s clergy with a letter concerning Montanism – a movement which came to be labeled as a heresy. Irenaeus, on
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
62
returning to Gaul, succeeded Saint Pothinus as Bishop of Lyons, after Pothinus had been martyred. There is no agreed upon date of his death nor can we know for sure that he ended his life with martyrdom. Irenaeus was buried under the Church of St John in Lyons, and is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, among other churches.
Going through Irenaeus‘ book Against Heresies, it will become clear that he was one of the founders of organization in the church. This is because he founded the doctrine known as Apostolic Succession. Basically what Irenaeus taught is that the integrity of God‘s word is maintained through a succession of Bishops in a church founded by an apostle. What Branham did not come across – and probably would have chosen not to include Irenaeus had he seen it – was the list of Bishops in the church of Rome that Irenaeus provides in his book which he says proved an unbroken succession from Peter and Paul down to his day. This was Irenaeus‘ own extra-biblical invention.
Irenaeus goes further and says that church tradition has pre-eminent authority and every church should follow the traditions of the Church of Rome (Against Heresies 3.3.2) Further, Irenaeus directly advocated for organization in the church by instructing other churches to follow the traditions of ‗the Church of Rome established by Peter and Paul‘ . As a result of the propagation of this doctrine by Irenaeus and others, the churches in the cities began exercising authority over smaller churches in the interiors. Besides, did Branham even consider the very fact that Irenaeus served as a Priest and later as Bishop of Lyon before he declared that he was ‗militant against any form of organization‘ – because it‘s clear that not only did he climb up the ladder of organization up to the position of Bishop, but he also strongly advocated for organization in the church and stated that church traditions had ‗pre eminent authority‘. What follows below is an excerpt from Chapter 3 of Irenaeus‘ third book in the Against Heresies series.
CHAP. III.--A REFUTATION OF THE HERETICS, FROM THE FACT THAT, IN THE VARIOUS CHURCHES, A PERPETUAL SUCCESSION OF BISHOPS WAS KEPT UP.
1. It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in
Core Teachings of the Message are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
63
unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful every- where, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 3 The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.(Against Heresies, 3.3 1-3) (emphasis by author) By reading Irenaeus‘ words above, it‘s easy to see why he is a darling of the Catholics. Branham says that Irenaeus ‗saw the danger of any kind of organized brotherhood among the elders, pastors, etc. He stood solidly for a unified, Spirit-filled, gift-manifesting local church‘, but here we see he declared that they ‗do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings‘ – referring to churches that were not adherent to the traditions of the church of Rome. He declares the Church of Rome ‗universally known‘ and vests supreme authority upon that church. Further he provides an appointed succession of Bishops of the Church (Popes) that he says maintain the truth: Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, Sorer and finally to the man of his day, Eleutherius.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
64
From chapter 4 of the third book:
CHAP. IV.--THE TRUTH IS TO BE FOUND NOWHERE ELSE BUT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE SOLE DEPOSITORY OF APOSTOLICAL DOCTRINE. HERESIES ARE OF RECENT FORMATION, AND CANNOT TRACE THEIR ORIGIN UP TO THE APOSTLES.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life.(1) For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question(2) among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (Against Heresies, 3.4.1)
Irenaeus laid one of the most important foundations upon which Catholicism was built; especially that one of Church hierarchy and succession. He was obsessed with Church authority and traditions. He fails miserably to satisfy the criteria that Branham allegedly used to arrive at the messenger for each age – most notably that one of ‗turning the age back to the word‘. The only thing we can be left wondering is how Mr. Branham was carrying out his research since if there ever was a person that was pro-Church organization and was content in declaring the Church‘s authority as pre eminent in equal measure with scripture, it would be Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons. I encourage the reader to go through Irenaeus‘ books to gain further understanding.
Martin - Pergamean Church Age (A.D. 312 to A.D. 606)
Before we begin our discussion of Martin, we should remind ourselves of what Mr. Branham thinks about the Catholic Church:
―Let me tell you a little personal experience. Switzerland, Germany, and the places where I've been, how does fortunetellers work, how does evil spirits travel? I want you to believe me as your pastor, 'cause you're the one I'm speaking to. Devils travel in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They cut feathers and everything else and throw spells on each other through the name of Father, Son, Holy Ghost. Call it the three high names. The mother of it is Catholic churches. They go to these little statues, and kneel there, and cut a feather with scissors and turn it backwards, and throw spells on their neighbors and so forth, where they were burnt to death and everything else for it.
In Switzerland I stood with my hands on the post like that where honest men and women died when they cut their tongues out, and burnt their eyes out and everything with hot rods, that prostitute Catholic church. Not only that, but the early Anglican churches too and your Protestant
Core Teachings of the Message are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
65
churches did the same thing. And they throwed those spells by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.‖ (BAPTISM.OF.THE.HOLY.SPIRIT_ JEFF.IN V-5 N-2 SUNDAY_ 58-0928M, par 139) William Branham regards the Catholic Church as a ‗prostitute church‘. That being said, it‘s indeed ironical when Branham chooses a Catholic faithful for the post of messenger to the Pergamean Church Age. Martin was a lifelong Catholic faithful, unto his death. From chapter five of An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, William Branham introduces us to St. Martin: ―Using our God-given rule for choosing the messenger to each age, that is, we choose the one whose ministry most closely approximates that of the first messenger, Paul, we unhesitatingly declare the Pergamean messenger to be Martin.‖ ―But not only was he gifted by a great ministry, he himself was forever true to the Word of God. He fought organization. He withstood sin in high places.‖ (par 159) Martin was a monk, who then became a priest and finally served as Bishop of the Roman church. He did not fight organization as Mr. Branham puts it; rather he was a full embracer of Roman Church organization. He was born around the year 316 in modern day Germany. He died around the year 397. Martin was baptized at the age of 18; when he was still in military service. After leaving the military, Martin became a disciple of Hilary of Poitiers. Hilary was a great proponent and defender of the Trinitarian doctrine, and Martin was an avid follower of Hilary‘s teachings. As for what Branham thinks of the Trinitarian doctrine, need we revisit the above quote where he asks, ―how does evil spirits travel?‖ and then answers, ―I want you to believe me as your pastor, 'cause you're the one I'm speaking to. Devils travel in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.‖ Harry Peyton10 notes that the ‗messenger‘ Martin was a Catholic bishop and patron saint of France who founded the first Catholic monastery in Gaul and taught the Catholic Eucharist doctrine, baptism for regeneration and baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In following and teaching Catholicism, Martin taught contrary to the apostle Paul. Around the year 372, Martin was consecrated as Bishop of the church of Tours. He served his diocese faithfully until his death. He was one among hundreds of Bishops of the Roman Church of his time. Mr. Branham would have you think he was an appointed prophet of his age who turned the age back to the word but this would be far from what he really was – a famous Bishop of the Roman Church, one among many. Columba - Thyaterian Church Age (A.D. 606 to A.D. 1520) During our discussion of Columba, you‘ll need to keep in mind Mr. Branham‘s opinions regarding the ‗prostitute‘ Catholic Church. Columba was a prominent leader within this ‗harlot‘ Church. William Branham chooses Columba as messenger in chapter six of his book:
―Neither the Western or the Eastern groups had within them a man who could possibly be the messenger to this age when examined in the light of Scripture. However, there were two men in
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
66
the British Isles, whose ministry in Word and deed could stand the test of truth. They were Saint Patrick and Saint Columba. It was to Saint Columba that the lot of being the messenger fell.‖
―About 60 years after the death of Saint Patrick, Columba was born in County Donegal, North Ireland, to the royal family of Fergus. He became a brilliant, consecrated scholar, committing to memory most of the Scripture. God called him in an audible voice to be a missionary.‖
―The pure Gospel that was preached by Columba and his fellow workers spread over the whole of Scotland, turning it to God. It also overflowed into Ireland and over Northern Europe. His means of spreading the Gospel was one wherein perhaps twelve men under a leader would go into a new area and literally build a Gospel - centered town. Amongst these twelve men would be carpenters, teachers, preachers, etc., all wonderfully versed in the Word and holy living. This little colony was enclosed by a wall. Soon this enclosure would be surrounded by students and their families in their own homes, learning the Word and preparing to go out and serve the Lord as missionaries, leaders, and preachers. The men were free to marry though many did not, in order to serve God the better.‖
―Saint Columba was the founder of a great Bible school on the island of Hy (off the S.W. coast of Scotland).‖ (par 217)
Recorded history points us to Columba as an Irish Catholic monk who was born 7 December 521 and died 9 June 597. The church age Thyatira began in 606. This means that Columba was long dead even before his assigned age began. Royal blood flowed through his veins, being the great-great grandson of the fourth century Irish king Niall of the Nine Hostages. Columba attended the then famous monastic school at Clonard Abbey; he became a monk and was later ordained a priest.
He founded several monasteries (what Mr. Branham calls Bible Schools), he later travelled to Iona, where he later died and was buried by his monks in his own abbey. The Catholic Encyclopedia asserts that ―He was not only a great missionary saint who won a whole kingdom to Christ, but he was a statesman, a scholar, a poet, and the founder of numerous churches and monasteries. His name is dear to Scotsmen and Irishmen alike. And because of his great and noble work even non-Catholics hold his memory in veneration.‖
Irenaeus built monasteries, attempted to convert entire tribes into Catholicism and spent decades, according to the Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 99, organizing his ecclesiastical system in Scotland. Again we are forced to ask: how on earth was Mr. Branham carrying out his research? What we have is a prominent fourth century Catholic monk assigned as the messenger to the Thyaterian 'Church Age‘. I leave the judgment to you.
Why did Branham choose Catholics as messengers? Harry Peyton raises an extremely important question that fatally shatters Branham‘s arrangement. I pose his question here: ―Let Branhamite Pastors ask themselves this question, why would Branham choose a Catholic Trinitarian Bishop to be his Church Age Messenger, when God had great renowned oneness preachers in this age like: Praxeas, Noetus, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Aeschines, Sabellius, Commodian, and many others who baptized in Jesus‘ Name and preached the same gospel as Paul?‖11 I guess he was
Core Teachings of the Message are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
67
counting on his audience to take what he had to say without carrying out the necessary confirmation – something all Message believers do. A word about Martin Luther According to William Branham, each of the seven messengers was appointed by God to bring His word for that day to the people of earth. The people alive during the age of a particular messenger were obligated to accept the teachings of that messenger as the direct word from God. Martin Luther then becomes a very disturbing inclusion in the list of the seven messengers. William Branham liked to portray himself as pro-Israel, and in particular, pro-Zionism. Branham believed that Jews are a special people. As a result, many Message believers are avidly pro-Israel and supporters of the Zionist cause. In their eyes, the State of Israel can do no wrong. All countries should be praised or criticized fairly, but this idea seems to elude many Christian, Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists. In the eyes of Branham and his followers, opposing Israel amounts to opposing God's people, and in fact God himself. If you're in the company of Message believers, it's not a very good idea to criticize Israel. It's therefore ironic that Branham chose to include Martin Luther in the list of his messengers. With due respect for his standing up to the mess that was the Roman Catholic Church in his day, Martin Luther unfortunately became a demented anti-Semite in his final years. Martin Luther, through his advocacy of Christian anti-Semitism, laid the foundation upon which modern anti-Semitism emerged. He became openly hostile to the Jews, even campaigning for their expulsion.12 He wrote a vitriolic book, published in 1543, called Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (On the Jews and Their Lies) in which we find garbage such as this: ―The worse a Jew is, the more arrogant he is, solely because he is a Jew — that is, a person descended from Abraham's seed, circumcised, and under the law of Moses. David and other pious Jews were not as conceited as the present-day, incorrigible Jews. However wicked they may be, they presume to be the noblest lords over against us Gentiles, just by virtue of their lineage and law. Yet the law rebukes them as the vilest whores and rogues under the sun.‖ (part 3) ―They must assuredly be the base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth. If there were a single pious Jew among them who observed these, he would have to be heard; for God cannot let his saints pray in vain, as Scripture demonstrates by many examples. This is conclusive evidence that they cannot be pious Jews, but must be the multitude of the whoring and murderous people.‖ (part 3) ―I advise you not to enter their synagogue; all devils might dismember and devour you there.‖ (part 2)
―They are the boastful, arrogant rascals who to the present day can do no more than boast of their race and lineage, praise only themselves, and disdain and curse all the world in their synagogues, prayers, and doctrines. Despite this, they imagine that in God's eyes they rank as his dearest children. They are real liars and bloodhounds who have not only continually perverted and falsified all of Scripture with their mendacious glosses from the beginning until the present day.‖ (part 2)
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
68
The entire book is a rant filled with hateful nonsense such as this. Martin Luther, ―God‘s prophet‖ for his ―age‖ as Branham wants us to believe, also says in the same book that Jews should be killed:
―We are at fault in not slaying them. Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite an their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and deride us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope).‖ (part 10)
Luther‘s work had a profound impact in Germany and indeed throughout Europe. His works were a major inspiration for anti-Semitism in Germany, which gradually evolved into the modern anti-Semitism that has caused so much devastation around the world. This is a man whose books are shocking to read, and it therefore becomes interesting to ask ourselves whether Branham knew who he was dealing with when he decided to include Martin Luther in his list of seven messengers.
The Seventieth Week of Daniel
It‘s not just the ideas in the Seven Church Ages book that Branham borrowed from other writers. If you go through Mr. Larkin‘s book, it will quickly become clear that Branham relied on it heavily to develop all his core teachings. When I got to page 48 of Larkin's book, I came across his description of the 'The Seventieth Week of Daniel'. I was immediately tempted to read up Branham's sermon on the same topic. I was not surprised to find that the prophet also read Larkin's research when preparing for his sermon on the topic. In the sermon The Seventieth Week of Daniel, Branham at least mentions that he is ―grateful‖ to [Adventist author Uriah] Smith and Larkin and other writers for their research:
―..And I've read many of their commentaries on it. And I'm very grateful to Mr. Smith of the Adventist church for his views. I'm very grateful to Dr. Larkin of his views. I'm grateful to all these great scholars for their views on this. And in reading them, it enlightens me much that I can find places that looks right...‖(THE.SEVENTIETH.WEEK.OF.DANIEL_ JEFFERSONVILLE.IN DA 89-141 SUNDAY_61-0806, par 51)
He then proceeds to deliver a sermon whose message is heavily borrowed from Larkin's Book of Revelation. Please go through Larkin's and Branham's works and make these comparisons for yourself. A week earlier, Branham had also delivered a sermon on the same topic, The Six-Fold Purpose of Gabriel's Visit to Daniel. Clearly, Larkin's work was also used for this sermon. In his Book of Revelation, Clarence Larkin writes in page 49:
―We are told in verse 24 that these "SEVENTY WEEKS" were determined for a SIX-FOLD purpose.
1. TO FINISH THE TRANSGRESSION.
Core Teachings of the Message are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
69
It is the transgression of ISRAEL that is here referred to, and the finishing of it will be the turning away of UNGODLINESS FROM JACOB. Rom. 11:26-27. The transgression of Israel has not yet come to an end, and will not until they as a Nation shall be converted. 2. TO MAKE AN END OF SINS. The margin reads to "seal up" sins. The sins of ISRAEL. This may refer to the author of Israel's sins--Satan, who shall at that time be "sealed up" in the Pit. Rev. 20:1-3. 3. TO MAKE RECONCILIATION FOR INIQUITY. This refers to ISRAEL'S iniquity in the rejection of their Messiah. While atonement was made for their sin on the Cross, its application to Israel as a Nation awaits the day when they shall look on Him whom they pierced (Zech. 12:10), and a fountain shall be opened to the "House of David," and the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and uncleanliness, Zech. 13:1, and a nation, the Jewish Nation, shall be "born again" in a day. Isa.66:8. 4. TO BRING IN EVERLASTING RIGHTEOUSNESS. When the "Transgression of ISRAEL" has come to an end, and her sins are "sealed up," then everlasting righteousness shall be brought in. The King will come, and the Kingdom be restored to Israel, and the Millennium will be here, and the "Knowledge of the Lord" shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea. Hab. 2:14. 5. TO SEAL UP THE VISION AND PROPHECY. When the "Transgression of ISRAEL" has ceased and they have uninterrupted communion with God, there will no longer be any need for "Vision" or "Prophet." It is a noteworthy fact that "Vision" and "Prophecy" has been confined to the Jewish race. 6. TO ANOINT THE MOST HOLY. This probably refers to the anointing of the "Most Holy Place," or the "Holy of Holies" of the MILLENNIAL TEMPLE, described by Ezekiel. Ezek. 41. ‖ The sermon The Six-Fold Purpose of Gabriel's Visit to Daniel, delivered by William Branham on July 30th 1961, is based on the above extract from Larkin's book. (Do not let it escape you that Larkin's book was published when Branham was about 10 years old.) As we can see in the above extract, Larkin perused through the pages of the Bible to find verses that explained Daniel the 9th chapter further. He came up with the following: under the heading 'To Finish the Transgression', Larkin quotes Romans 11:26-27. Under 'To Make an End of Sins', he quotes Revelation 20:1-3. Under 'To Make Reconciliation For Iniquity, he cites Zechariah 12 and 13 and Isaiah 66. Under 'To Bring In Everlasting Righteousness', he quotes Habbakuk 2:14. Under 'To Anoint the Most Holy', he cites the book of Ezekiel. Branham borrows these exact ideas and quotes these exact verses in the sermon The Six-Fold Purpose of Gabriel's Visit to Daniel. He preached as follows:
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
70
―Now, there was a six-fold purpose in his visit, telling him what was going to come to pass. Now, there was a sixfold purpose of his coming.‖ (par 37)
"Number one: To finish the transgression. That's the first thing." (par 40) "Now, to find this, let's turn to Romans, the 11th chapter of Romans, and begin with the 21st verse of Romans 11." (par 42)
"Number two: Make a end of sins. Now, let's read again; Daniel. 'To finish transgression and--and make an end of sins.'" (par 52)
"Number three: To make reconciliations for iniquity: you who's writing it down." (par 85) "Now, in Zechariah the 13th chapter, let's begin at the 1st--at the 1st verse:" (par 90) "Let's turn to Isaiah the--Isaiah, the 66th chapter of Isaiah..." (par 94)
"Number four: To bring in everlasting righteousness. That's the fourth thing that he come for, the fourth, what he's come to do." (par 96) "Now, let's us turn back to Habakkuk the 2nd chapter, Habakkuk the 2nd chapter." (par 100)
"Number five: To seal up the vision and prophecy. " (par 103 )
"The sixth: Anoint the most High." (par 115) "Let's go back to Ezekiel and find out how he's--pictures in the Millennium, how they will anoint the... Ezekiel 43, and let's just read a little bit here now and see what he's going to do in this Millennium" (par 116)
Branham here borrows the exact ideas and Bible verses from Larkin. That entire sermon was based on the extract shared above from Larkin's book. Any Message believer across the world reading the Message book will have it in his or her perception that these things were revealed to Branham directly by God. Nothing could be further from the truth. William Branham, like any other ordinary preacher, evidently read books from other writers to come up with his sermons. They were not, in any way, received supernaturally.
…And Many More
In order to explain all of Branham‘s sermons that were based on Larkin‘s book, we would need a thousand pages. When going through Larkin‘s book, if you come across any given topic, it is more likely than not that Branham based one or more of his sermons on what you‘re reading. Larkin‘s works on the Church Ages, the Seals, the Trumpets, the intervals, the Marriage of the Lamb, the Mark of the Beast and so forth – are all used by Branham throughout his ministry. This continued on, despite the fact that he would say that these things had been ―revealed‖ to him directly from God in supernatural ways such as visions. When delivering sermons on these topics, he invoked the authority of being ―God‘s messenger‖ for these ―last days‖ and the poor lads at the Branham Tabernacle would sit in awe and listen to the ―thus saith the Lord‖ revelations. As we can see now, there was no ―Lord‖ behind his teachings, but there was a man. We may safely rename Branham‘s ―revelations‖ as ―thus saith Larkin‖.
It may be argued that a preacher surely may, and many usually do, consult other writers when preparing for sermons. But that's not the innocent practice in play here. What we have is a man first of all claiming to be God's voice, preaching numerous sermons over many years, and
Core Teachings of the Message are Borrowed from Clarence Larkin
71
claiming that he is getting the materials directly from God. Yet we can locate the sources of many of his core doctrines, unashamedly borrowed without giving credit to the original researcher, and even blatantly including them in his own book. This was very dishonest of him, and he does not deserve the respect he now enjoys among millions of people around the world.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
72
73
CHAPTER 5
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
What is this modern Babylon that we're trying to build a machine to take us to the moon? You'll never make it.
WILLIAM BRANHAM
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
74
When you get into a conversation about the Message with believers, they often resort to the statement that ‗everything the prophet said was accurate, since it was directly obtained from God.‘ For this reason, when they come across a clear discrepancy between what the Bible says and what Branham said, they will go with what the prophet said since they deem Branham to be the supreme interpreter of scripture for this age; in other words, he had power to override scripture and come up with a new interpretation since he got his messages directly from God. He exercises this power for instance when he interprets verses from Genesis into a totally new meaning: that Eve was involved in sexual intercourse with the serpent.
William Branham tells us that he used to receive messages directly from God and his angels:
―Angel of God, You Who came into the room that night, and told me these things... I've tried to live true to it.‖ (EXPERIENCES.3_ PHOENIX.AZ SUNDAY_ 47-1221, par 145)
―Now, you--you--you believe in God, don't you? Now, you have believed in God, you believe in me, that that Angel of God came down and told me that.‖ (ANGEL.OF.GOD_ PHOENIX.AZ THURSDAY_ 48-0304, par 52)
―Now, that come through the "Reader's Digest." You see? And Mayo Brothers called me in on an interview for that. Said, "Reverend Branham, what did you do to the baby?" I said, "Nothing, I never touched it. I only told what God told me to tell it. The man obeyed it."‖(DEMONOLOGY.2.RELIGIOUS_ CONNERSVILLE.IN DE 41-78 TUESDAY_ 53-0609, par 170)
It is therefore not surprising that Believers will take what Branham had to say as the literal truth even when it is in direct contradiction with the Bible they claim to believe in – after all, he was downloading the material directly from a heavenly server. This very belief is the cornerstone of Branhamism: that what the prophet preached was directly inspired of the Lord and he therefore should be taken at his word. For this very reason Believers read Message books far more than they read the Bible itself. This is not a debate on whether doing this is right or wrong; it is a reminder that if you are a Message believer, you hold everything he said to be the absolute truth.
If something is not true, it only follows that it is false: there are no two ways about it. This chapter will definitely be very discouraging to the lifelong believer who has never taken the initiative to investigate everything the prophet said, since what you‘re about to go through is a demonstration of pure falsehoods and statements totally lacking even tiny bits of truth. Normally when these things become apparent to the average believer, the common reactions would be to invoke the common rebuttal that ‗the canal mind in incapable of fully understanding spiritual matters‘, ‗we will understand it by and by‘ or ‗you should not subject God‘s matters to reasoning.‘ It‘s important for the reader at this point not to forget the powers of cognitive dissonance that were discussed in the second chapter of this book, Psychological Barriers That Get in the Way.
But guess what, I agree with you on the last one: If you tell me that the capital city of the USA is Paris, need I invoke any hard reasoning to figure out that it‘s not true? Some things the prophet
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
75
said were outright falsehoods; you do not need any hard reasoning to figure them out. In multiple instances Branham tells ‗the-capital-city-of-USA-is-Paris‘ kind of things and believers totally swallow them. Nitpicking? If I‘m beginning to convince you, maybe I should give you a little foresight into what Message believers will throw back at you after you start showing them the absurdities the prophet used to tell congregations from the pulpit. It‘s their favorite word: ―nit-picking‖. In summary, they claim that non- and ex-Message believers go through the sermons and when they find an error, they use it to attack the prophet. This, they say, is unfair since the prophet was human. One of these apologists says: ―Give me 1100 plus messages of the critic and see if I can[t] catch a mis-quote here and there. No one is perfect, in fact Brother Branham's simple mistakes such as these simply show that he is human.‖1 How convenient. When Branhamite pastors for instance don‘t like something that‘s being done by the faithful, they also go through the Message, pick a quote that says you shouldn‘t do that particular thing and then proclaim that ‗the prophet said so, and that settles it.‘ It is generally known - Message believers take every spoken word as God‘s voice – except of course, when he‘s proven false. When Branham is caught in a lie, we‘re quick to point out that he was human. When Branham is saying any other thing, we‘re quick to point out that everything he said was given to him by the Holy Spirit. We‘ll have to make a choice here because we can‘t have it both ways. Consider the following quote: ―The same Holy Spirit that preached the service tonight, the same Holy Spirit preaches all these things is the same Holy Spirit that discerns the thoughts of the heart. Certainly.‖ (QUEEN.OF.THE.SOUTH_ SHREVEPORT.LA SUNDAY_ 60-1127E, par 89) The prophet says here that the Holy Spirit preached the service that night. That‘s why Branhamite pastors use quotes such as this to enforce each and every instruction that Brother Branham gave to the church. And this is why we also will use quotes such as this to scrutinize everything the prophet said. And something else - when he repeats an absurdity many times over, the nit-picking argument bites the dust. After you read this chapter, it will fall on you whether to continue embracing an extra-ordinarily fallible man as your infallible prophet or to declare that you deserve better. ―And you be sure to say just what the tape says. Don't say nothing else (See?), 'cause... I don't say that of my own. It's Him that says it.‖ (GOD.IN.SIMPLICITY_ JEFF.IN SUNDAY_ 63-0317M, par 105)
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
76
With the above statement, Mr. Branham has given us the justification to scrutinize each and every word in the tapes. Carefully note that he says that it was God who was speaking through his mouth. Therefore if Branham tells a lie, we may safely conclude that God is a liar. If we are not willing to accept that God is a liar, then we‘re going to have to conclude that the liar here is Brother Branham. We can‘t have it both ways after this.
The world will end in 1977
―Based on these seven visions, along with the rapid changes which have swept the world in the last fifty years, I PREDICT (I do not prophesy) that these visions will have all come to pass by 1977. And though many may feel that this is an irresponsible statement in view of the fact that Jesus said that 'no man knoweth the day nor the hour.' I still maintain this prediction after thirty years because, Jesus did NOT say no man could know the year, month or week in which His coming was to be completed. So I repeat, I sincerely believe and maintain as a private student of the Word, along with Divine inspiration that 1977 ought to terminate the world systems and usher in the millennium.‖ –William Branham (LAODICEAN.CHURCH.AGE - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK, CPT.9, par 322)
A common argument usually raised to justify this failed prophecy is that Branham, by saying ‗I predict, I do not prophesy,‘ meant that this was his personal opinion, not God‘s. This is easily debunked by the same quote above where he invokes God and says that his prediction had divine inspiration. Therefore Branham‘s statement that ‗I do not prophesy,‘ is useless in this context.
William Branham predicted with divine inspiration that the world would end in 1977. In short he told us that God told him that the world would end in 1977. It didn‘t happen. So here we have two possibilities: It was indeed true that God told Branham that the world would end in 1977. Given that it didn‘t, God lied to us. The other possibility is that God did not tell Branham that the world would end in 1977. Branham lied to us.
We‟ll never make it to the moon
The man who is God‘s voice for the age, William Branham, declared that man would never make it to the moon:
―What's the meaning of these sputniks in the skies? What's the matter? What is this modern Babylon that we're trying to build a machine to take us to the moon? You'll never make it.‖ (HANDWRITING.ON.THE.WALL_ JEFF.IN SUNDAY_ 58-0309M, par 49)
―Oh, now they're all wanting to make a whole lot of these astronaut cans so they can get into it. And the--the atomic age comes, they're going to bust up the world; they just pull this and all go over on the moon, taking a trip to the moon, and have it all over with, and so they'll just make them another economy on the moon. They ain't going to get there. I don't believe, with all my heart, they'll ever get there. See?‖ (COUNTDOWN_ JEFF.IN V-11 N-3 SUNDAY_ 62-0909M, par 101 )
―And I tell you now, it's a program that'll take you a hundred billion, billion, million light years beyond the moon. That's right. And there if you go to the moon you couldn't set down because see, you'd jump right back up unless you had some magnet to hold you there. You couldn't stay
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
77
overnight; you'd freeze to death. In the daytime you'd burn up. What you going to do when you get there?‖ (BASIS.OF.FELLOWSHIP_ LONG.BEACH.CA TUESDAY_ 61-0214, par 36) On 20th July 1969, several years after Branham‘s death, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin set foot on the moon. Man indeed kept ―trying‖ and eventually managed to a build a machine that took him to the moon, her name was Eagle and this was accomplished during NASA‘s Apollo 11 mission. In total, 24 American astronauts have travelled to the moon. Half of them have walked on its surface. I am confident that you know this to be a fact unless you‘ve fallen for the conspiracy theories of Bill Kaysing and company. Los Angeles will sink into the ocean before Billy is old In Acts of the Prophet by Pearry Green, it is told that William Branham and his son Billy Paul were standing somewhere in downtown Los Angeles when the prophet told him: ―Billy, I may not be here but you won't be an old man until sharks will swim right where we are standing" 2 Billy was born on September 13, 1935. As I write this, Billy is 76 years old. Los Angeles may or may not ‗sink‘ (however absurd that notion is) into the ocean in the future, but what we do know for sure is that the above prophecy has failed. The Bible says that Eve had sex with the serpent Let‘s shift our discussion for a moment and talk about the forbidden fruit. Although the discussion on the Serpent Seed will also be mentioned in sections to come, I find it fitting that the fact that Branham said that Eve had sex with a snake should be included in this chapter. The prophet tells us that the Bible was telling us in a hidden manner that Eve had sex with the snake. Let‘s consider it for a moment. In the sermon Serpent’s Seed, Branham says: ―Ain't a woman a fruit tree? Aren't you the fruit of your mother? That was the fruit that was forbidden to be taken.‖ (par 133) ―What did he do? [The serpent] He begin making love to Eve. And he lived with her as a husband. And she saw it was pleasant, so she went and told her husband; but she was already pregnant by Satan. And she brought forth her first son whose name was Cain, the son of Satan.‖ (par 160) ―"And I will put enmity between thy seed and the serpent's seed." What? The serpent's seed. She had a seed, and he had a seed. "And he shall bruise thy head, and you shall bruise his heel." A "bruise" there means "to make an atonement."‖ (par 161) ―And He said, "Who told you you was naked?" Then they begin to--in army fashion, passing the buck. Said, "Well, the woman You gave me done it. She was the one who persuaded me." And she said, "The serpent give me an apple." All right, preacher, get next to yourself. She said, "The serpent beguiled me." Do you know what "beguile" means? Means "defiled." The...?... The devil never gave her an apple. "The serpent has beguiled me."‖ (SERPENT'S.SEED_ JEFF.IN V-2 N-4 SUNDAY_ 58-0928E, par 163)
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
78
Let‘s break down Mr. Branham‘s assertions. He says that the Bible tells us symbolically that:
 The tree of knowledge of good and evil was the woman
 The fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was sex
 When Eve was eating the fruit (sex), she lived with the serpent as a wife
 Eve had sex with the serpent; she became pregnant and bore Cain
Let‘s now turn our attention to what the Bible says about the forbidden fruit:
―The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..‖ (Genesis 2:9)
―The woman said to the serpent, ―We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‗You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.‘‖ (Genesis 3:2)
―When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.‖ (Genesis 3:6)
―After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.‖ (Genesis 3:24)
―Adam made love to his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, ―With the help of the LORD I have brought forth a man.‖ Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. ―(Genesis 4:1) – NIV.
From the above verses we may break down the Bible‘s assertions:
 The trees of life and knowledge of good and evil were grown off the ground
 Both trees were grown in the middle of the garden
 Their fruits were edible since Eve saw that the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was good for food and she ate it.
 When Eve was eating the fruit she was with her husband, as we see on 3:6.
 A cherubim and a sword were placed to guard the way to the middle of the garden after they were thrown out.
 4:1 above makes it clear that Eve became pregnant by Adam and gave birth to Cain.
Now if Branham‘s assertions are correct - that the tree was the woman, the fruit was sex and that the snake impregnated Eve and she bore Cain, then the following statements should also be correct going by the Bible‘s assertion above:
 Eve was grown off the ground
 Eve was planted in the middle of the garden
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
79
 Sex is edible and good for food
 Adam watched as his wife had sex with the serpent after which he had sex with her (3:6 says she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her).
 A cherubim and a sword were placed to guard the way to where Eve was planted (the middle of the garden) so that Adam and Eve may not gain access.
The above statements are laughable, but they represent Branham‘s description of the state of affairs at the Garden of Eden. If the dose of satire has not yet convinced you, Harry A. Peyton observes the following:
 Eve could not have been the fruit of knowledge of good and evil as Branham claims since the tree of knowledge of good and evil was created and placed in the middle of the garden even before Eve was created.
 Also Eve could not have been the fruit of knowledge of good and evil as Branham claims, since: (Genesis 2:9) The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Carefully note the words in bold.
 Eating the fruit could not have represented sex, since if it did, then this would imply that Adam was allowed to have sex with everyone except Eve (2:16-17): And the LORD God commanded the man, ―You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.‖
 The ‗tree‘ and ‗eating the fruit‘ could not have represented a woman and sex, since if they did, then this would imply that Eve was allowed to have sex with all women except herself, making her a lesbian.
This rather disgusting tale of Eve having sex with a serpent did not originate with Branham. It is a centuries-old story that even the ―messenger‖ Irenaeus, ironically, condemned back in the 2nd Century A.D:
"But the others coming and admiring her beauty, named her Eve, and falling in love with her, begat sons by her, whom they also declare to be the angels. But their mother (Sophia) cunningly devised a scheme to seduce Eve and Adam, by means of the serpent, to transgress the command of Ialdabaoth. Eve listened to this as if it had proceeded from a son of God, and yielded an easy belief. She also persuaded Adam to eat of the tree regarding which God had said that they should not eat of it. They then declare that, on their thus eating, they attained to the knowledge of that power which is above all, and departed from those who had created them.(1) When Prunicus
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
80
perceived that the powers were thus baffled by their own creature, she greatly rejoiced, and again cried out, that since the father was incorruptible, he (Ialdabaoth) who formerly called himself the father was a liar; and that, while Anthropos and the first woman (the Spirit) existed previously, this one (Eve) sinned by committing adultery."
"They thereupon became patient, knowing that only for a time they would be enveloped in the body. They also found out food, through the guidance of Sophia; and when they were satisfied, they had carnal knowledge of each other, and begat Cain, whom the serpent, that had been cast down along with his sons, immediately laid hold of and destroyed by filling him with mundane oblivion, and urging into folly and audacity, so that, by slaying his brother Abel, he was the first to bring to light envy and death. After these, they affirm that, by the forethought of Prunicus, Seth was begotten, and then Norea,(3) from whom they represent all the rest of mankind as being descended." (Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 30, from paragraph 6)
The angel of the Lord appeared to me when Israel was declared a nation on May 6/7 1946
William Branham now goes beyond saying things that are a bit technical to disprove – to telling us things that are contradictory to widely known facts. Examine these four quotes:
―The very day that Israel was declared a nation again for the first time for twenty-five hundred years, that same night the Angel of the Lord sent me out to pray for the sick, the very same time, May the 6th, 1946, the Lord Jesus did that.‖ (MANIFESTATION.OF.THY.RESURRECTION_ LA.CA MONDAY_ 54-0809E, par 13)
―The very hour, by the Pan American chart, that Israel was declared a nation for the first time for two thousand years since they'd been scattered, not a people, it was that very same hour, exactly to the hour, that the Angel of the Lord met me up yonder and sent me to the--with the Gospel--the very same thing: May the 7th, 1946.‖ (GABRIEL'S.INSTRUCT.TO.DANIEL_ JEFF.IN DA 1-44 SUNDAY_ 61-0730M, par 150)
―And a strange thing of that, that you might not know, the very day the Angel of the Lord called me out, May the 6th, 1947, and issued the gift to pray for the sick, was the very same day that Israel become a nation for the first time for twenty-five hundred years. Oh, I believe there's something in it. I just can't keep from believing that we're near the end of time. That's right.‖ (GREAT.COMING.REVIVAL_ CHICAGO.IL SUNDAY_ 54-0718A, par 51)
―And last week, you know what taken place in Israel, the last sign. Israel became a nation in 1947 on the same night the Angel of the Lord visit me. When It came at me at twelve o'clock, it was noon when they signed the--that peace pact with the world and the League of Nations and so forth, overseas.‖ (WHO.IS.THIS_ CLARKSVILLE.IN SUNDAY_ 59-1004M, par 4)
Israel declared its independence on 14th May 1948, and the day is celebrated as the national holiday Yom Ha'atzmaut. The ‗human error‘ rebuttal that may be offered against this lie is easily refuted by showing that he said this over several sermons, years apart. Like we noted in previous chapters, no one ever possessed the ability to change history, not even Mr. Branham. He may have managed to convince people back then, but people in the information age have exceptional abilities to cross check every piece of information that comes their way.
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
81
The lowest form of life is the frog When you present Message believers with the huge scientific errors presented to us by the prophet, the obvious reply you get is that Branham had little education. Yet they trust the same man in all other instances in which he gives explanations for things science is yet to uncover, such as the Unidentified Flying Objects (if they exist at all) which Branham says are angels (last time I checked though, angelic beings described in the Bible never required flying vessels to travel). If we cannot trust him to talk about things that science has established for sure, how can we trust him to explain the huge scientific fields he delves into during his sermons – such as biology and astronomy? Branham was playing way out of his league – but we would expect him to be accurate anyway, since he was getting his Message directly from God. Sample these quotes, for instance: ―Now, watch. What's the lowest form of life we have? Frog. What's the highest form of life? Human. Certainly. And what is the highest form? It just kept coming from the lowest on up, from a frog to this and to that, and to the bird, and to, oh, so forth, just higher forms of life, until it come to the highest form it could come, then it was made in the image of God.‖ (WHY.ARE.WE.NOT.A.DENOMINATION?_ JEFF.IN V-11 N-7 SATURDAY_ 58-0927, par 265) ― ...The lowest form of life that there is the frog. The highest form is the human being. God started at the bottom and made right up till He brought it plumb to His image. Brought it from the birds and the beasts and on up till He got to the image of God.‖ (SERPENT'S.SEED_ JEFF.IN V-2 N-4 SUNDAY_ 58-0928E, par 135) In actual fact, the frog, being an amphibian, belongs to one of the highest life forms. Indeed, the frog belongs to the same phylum as humans in the animal kingdom. The frog belongs to a higher life form than very many animals (80% of all animals) – too many to list here; therefore I will just list the phyla in the animal kingdom that fall below the frog‘s phylum Chordata: Phylum Echinodermata with members such as the star fish, sea urchin, sea cucumber and the feather star; Phylum Mollusca –with members such as slugs, snails, squids, mussels, clams and octopuses; Phylum Arthropoda - With nearly a million species (almost 80% of the animal kingdom); Phylum Annelida – Segmented Worms; Phylum Nematoda – Ascarids; Phylum Platyhelminthes – Aschelminthes; Phylum Coelenterata – Cridaria; Phylum Porifera – Sponges; Phylum Protozoa – the microscopic creatures. We now know for a fact that the frog belongs to a higher life form than more than 80% of all animals on planet earth. If Mr. Branham was the voice of God in this age, does this mean that God does not know the animals on planet earth? I am inclined to believe that if God created the animals, then he does know that there are millions of species below the frog. And if God used to talk to Branham at the pulpit, he would‘ve given him the correct information.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
82
Men have one less rib than women
Branham continues his scientific blunders by telling us that since Eve was created from a rib that was taken out of Adam, women unto this day possess one more rib than women in their anatomy. I remember being a little Branhamite many years ago when we would try and count our ribs and then ask the girls to go do the same for comparison – after our Sunday school teacher told us that the prophet said that women possess one more rib than men. The teacher was referring to the following quote:
Now, God made Eve from Adam's side. The woman has one more rib today in the anatomy, the make-up than man does, because a rib was taken from Adam's body. Adam had already been made and was living, and was lonesome, and then God said, "It's not good that man should live alone."‖ (QA.ON.GENESIS_ JEFF.IN COD WEDNESDAY_ 53-0729, par 93)
We know for a fact that all human beings, regardless of their gender, have twelve pairs of ribs. The ―infallible‖ prophet who said we should trust him on very complex matters couldn‘t use all his powers to know that both men and women have an equal number of ribs.
The earth is stationary
The prophet of the age is now willing to go against things we can observe and tell us that they don‘t exist, such as the earth‘s rotation and revolution:
―And how do you know which way you're going? I believe the hour will come when they'll actually find out that the world don't even run. I believe that with all my heart. I don't believe--how much they scientifically prove it or anything more. They done a lot of scientific proving they had to take back. See? God said the world stopped... The sun... I mean the sun stopped instead of the world (See?), the sun. I actually don't believe the sun... I--I--I don't believe the sun does what they say it does. I know the moon travels, and I believe the--the sun runs also. See? But some of them say, "He looked at the ignorance of Joshua (See?)," and said "He stopped the..." said, "It was..." Well, he said, "He stopped the world." (QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS_ JEFF.IN COD THURSDAY_ 61-0112, par 420)
Mr. Branham above says that God refutes the idea of the earth‘s movements. But we do know for sure that the earth rotates on its own axis and revolves around the sun – so – who is wrong – Branham or God? My guess is that it‘s Branham. What‘s yours?
You‟re made up of light
―The Bible said, "Your whole body's full of light meters?" Did you know that? Your body's full of light. Science said, "Well, that's crazy." But they prove it. The x-ray don't use artificial light; it uses your lights. The x-ray is the lights that's in--light meters that's in your own body. You're not made up... But you're made up of petroleum, and cosmic light, and atoms, and so forth. That's all you are, just put together. And you dwell in that, in that body of flesh. Someday, they'll be brought--broke up.‖ (INTER.VEIL_ STURGIS.MI SATURDAY_ 56-0121, par 29)
―And we find out today that your body is made up of light meters. X-ray proves it; it takes your own light from your body to take the picture on the inside of you, so God's right after all.‖ (FAITH.IN.ACTION_ CHICAGO.IL MONDAY_ 55-1003, par 32)
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
83
―Now, when we were made, if--when we were made. And they just found out, recently, that your body is full of light. X-ray proves that. The x-ray does not have any light of its own. It's your light that it uses. You're born with four rays. After a little while, say twenty, twenty-five, one ray goes out; and thirty-five, another; or forty, another one goes out; and finally when you get pass about sixty-five, you're living on your last ray. And every time you take a x-ray picture, you're tearing them rays down. That's the reason you don't have no more... and you stick these kids' feet in them machines, because it was just tearing the rays right out of their little bodies. And that's cosmic light that's in you, that you're made up, full of light cells. Now, that's cosmic light.‖ (UNCERTAIN.SOUND_ JEFF.IN V-16 N-3 SUNDAY_ 60-1218, par 37) Mr. Branham in the above quotes says that we‘re made up of light; and that the X-ray machine uses our own light. We can safely say that solids and liquids, which we‘re mostly made up of, are not made up of light. Scientists are still debating the particulate nature of light. Light travels at about 186,000 miles per second and maybe Branham should have considered this before he said he was made up of light yet he was stationary on the pulpit while saying so. Secondly, how would an X-ray machine ―use your own light‖? X-rays are a type of energy similar to normal light, only that they have a shorter wavelength. This shorter wavelength enables them to penetrate some objects that normal light cannot. This property is usually exploited to come up with an X-ray film: X-rays are first produced by bombarding a hard metallic surface with an electron beam. The rays are then directed towards your body. They penetrate the body tissue but are blocked (absorbed) by the bones, hence the bones appear on the negative film as the areas that were not struck by the X-rays. If we cannot trust Mr. Branham to talk to us about things that are known and obvious, why should we trust him to talk to us about any other thing? The halo of light photograph vindicates my teachings
William Branham had strange ways of showing people that his Message was true. Be it ‗mysterious‘ clouds or unexplained lights, his main point was that the paranormal events surrounding his life established that his was a true Message from God. Even setting aside the fact that the Bible the Message believers claim to believe in says that evil and deceitful teachers with
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
84
powers to perform miracles would walk the earth, the supernatural events Branham clings to are ridiculous to say the least and problematic at best.
The halo of light photograph displayed above is the one single image I have laid my eyes on the most during my entire life. It hangs in almost all the Message believers‘ living rooms I visited as a child and as an adult. It is also displayed in most of the Message churches you‘ll visit. Back when I was a Message believer, I used to reference this photo as supernatural endorsement of Brother Branham and his Message when introducing people to it. We would not be asking too much of Believers if we requested them to consider abandoning the Message if this photo was relegated to the ‗highly suspect‘ category – they virtually worship this photograph.
―And that discussion down there with this Baptist minister who taken the opposite side, that Christ wasn't a Healer now. And then, the Lord came before thirty thousand people that night, and put it... He had His picture the Light that gives the discernment, that showed that it was true. And George J. Lacy, the head of the FBI, of finger print and documents took from California and came to the Shell building in there and examined the picture, and said, "Mr. Branham, I've been your critic, and I said it was psychology." But said, "The mechanical eye of this camera won't take psychology. The light struck the lens." And so, you have the picture now. And one of them's in Washington, D.C., in the religious Hall of Art, with a note under it, "The only supernatural being was ever photographed in the history of the world." And now, then if you're ever through there, stop in and see it.‖ (SHOW.US.THE.FATHER_ TUCSON.AZ THURSDAY_ 63-0606, par 24)
In this and many other quotes, Mr. Branham claims that first and foremost, the photograph was examined not only by the FBI but by its chief, George Lacy. Secondly, that the photograph was flown that very same night it was taken to Washington D.C3; that the photograph was displayed in Washington D.C. Religious Hall of Art and subsequently declared the only supernatural entity ever photographed.4 Discuss this photograph with a Message believer and they will never fail to point out to you that the photograph was examined by the FBI and proven supernatural, and that it‘s now displayed in Washington D.C. Hall of Religious Art and is universally acclaimed as the only supernatural entity ever photographed.
True to his character, William Branham made minced meat out of his audience‘s intelligence again in all the instances he talked about this photograph. First and foremost, there never existed a Religious Hall of Art in Washington D.C. then and there still is not such a hall today. This was a blatant fabrication by Branham. In fact there isn‘t any notable special display in Washington D.C. which has the photograph- except of course, Message believers‘ churches and homes. The second deception was the one about George Lacy. There has never been an FBI chief named George Lacy. Or even George for that matter.5 George Lacy was a freelance examiner of questioned documents who used to work off Texas6, and he only examined the photograph because Branham‘s lieutenant, Gordon Lindsay, hired and paid Lacy a good sum of money for his services.7
And here comes the big one (drum roll please) – George Lacy never declared that the light above Branham‘s head was of supernatural origin, and no notable objective authority has ever claimed
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
85
that the photograph was ‗the only supernatural being ever photographed.‘ After Gordon Lindsay had the photograph examined, George Lacy came up with the following report8:
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
86
There is no part of the report that declares the light supernatural. This was a blatant falsification by Branham and his lieutenants. Lacy confirms that there wasn‘t any retouching of the film or chemical reaction on the negative and also rules out a composite or double exposed negative. In short, Lacy confirmed that the light struck the negative -period. For an image to be impressed upon a negative, light has to strike the negative. When the capture button of a film camera is pressed, a negative image is formed on the film when it‘s struck by light. In short, what Lacy concluded is that the photograph was a normal one. Message believers will have you think that the halo of light photograph was special since it was proven that the light struck the negative. The truth of the matter is that this is the normal scenario – images are impressed upon a negative
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
87
by allowing light to strike it. This is the normal method of taking a photograph using a film camera. Having established that George Lacy confirmed that the photograph was a normal one, we obviously come to the conclusion that the photograph simply captured a source of light within the Houston Coliseum, or a reflection of one. There‘s nothing supernatural here. If something cannot be explained, this does not necessarily imply that it is supernatural. It simply means that we do not have enough information about it. If we had other photographs of the auditorium from the same event we‘d probably point exactly to the source of that light. You‟re healed It is irrefutably clear that Branham dazzled hundreds of thousands of people with his signs and wonders. Indeed, many people believe in the Message because of the supernatural events surrounding the prophet‘s entire life. We‘re not here to declare that all his miracles were fake, but when his success rate is shown to be way below a hundred per cent, we have no option but to put his miracles under the ‗highly suspect‘ category. If you go through books such as A Man Sent from God, A Prophet Visits South Africa and the Supernatural series, you‘ll come across stories about amazing signs and wonders that the prophet performed. Questioning the veracity of each and every one of these wonders is not our business at this point. But these books were written by people who believed and wanted to believe in Branham‘s doctrines. What about the people who were left behind after the crusades? What about the people he allegedly healed? Did anyone go visiting after sometime to get their story and see how they were doing? The interview reproduced below casts considerable doubts on Branham‘s ―healings‖. What follows is a personal testimony from Alfred Pohl, who was Branham‘s assistant during a crusade at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in Canada. To the objective reader, this disturbing interview, which you‘re free to verify, might be the final blow to your belief in Mr. Branham. This is an interview Alfred Pohl had with the editor of O Timothy magazine, February 21, 1990:
O Timothy: Now, did many claim to be healed, or did it seem that many were healed in the meeting? Pohl: In the meetings? Ah, yes, there were those that claimed to be healed, and there were those people that thought they saw healings, or thought they saw miracles. But, when you were on the inside, you saw that some of those things that were supposed to be miracles, were not miracles at all. From the outside, you would think that something had really happened; but having been right close to Branham, and working right with him, I discovered that a lot of those supposed healings or miracles were really not miracles after all. O Timothy: Okay. As you took him through the dorm, he prayed for different individuals. What did he say during those encounters with the individuals? Pohl: Well, one of the things he did was to take the hand of the person, and quite often I heard him say that the angel that gave him this gift told him that to identify certain diseases--and he would speak of cancer very much--there are vibrations that he felt on his hand that indicate that this person has cancer.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
88
So he would take the patient‘s hand and hold it. He would say, ―Yes, the vibrations tell me that you have cancer.‖ Then he‘d say something like this, ―We‘re going to pray for you, that the Lord will heal you.‖ And he proceeded to do this. Then he went on, and when he was through praying, he would take that hand again or else he would hold the hand throughout the prayer, and he would say, ―The vibrations are gone. The cancer is dead. You are healed.‖ And the person would rejoice, of course; so would I. I thoroughly believed in Branham, I thought he was God‘s man and so forth, and we wanted to see people healed. So [supposedly] the cancer was dead, and we were happy about this. But then he had a little added statement there, and that was something like this, ―Now, just keep on trusting the Lord. You‘re healed. Don‘t loose your faith in the Lord. Just keep your faith and trust the Lord, and you‘re healed.‖ He said, ―You‘re going to be sick for a while. You‘re going to be quite sick for a few days.‖ Quite often he referred to three days. ―You‘re going to be very sick for three days.‖ The people often asked, ―Well, what do you mean, Brother Branham? If I‘m healed, why should I be sick?‖ He said, ―The cancer, the cancerous growth which is now dead inside your body has to be carried out by the blood stream. And it‘s waste material; it has to be carried out; it‘s poison material, and so you‘ll be sick for quite awhile until that is carried away.‖ But what happened then was this: that in the meantime the people wouldn‘t worry about it. They‘d say, ―Well, that‘s what Branham said would happen. I‘m healed.‖ But this went on, till some of these people got sicker and sicker and died. So he had an out. By this time he was gone [from that place]. O Timothy: Right. So there were many that he proclaimed healed? Pohl: Yes, yes. Practically every one as I recall, standing beside these various bedsides--practically everyone was pronounced healed. But the tragedy is that so many of those died after Branham was gone. So there was something wrong. He also said, ―Don‘t let your faith fail.‖ In other words he emphasized that point. ―Don‘t let your faith fail.‖ And his out was this, I‘m sure, that when they died, well, ―Their faith failed.‖ It wasn‘t his faith, it was their faith. In other words, it was the patient‘s faith, which I don‘t see that in Scripture. When the Lord healed people, they were healed. And there wasn‘t such a thing as ―You‘ll be sick for five days, or three days,‖ and so, ―don‘t lose your faith.‖ I don‘t see that in Scripture. O Timothy: There was a newspaper that tried to investigate the healings. Can you tell me something about that? What were they able to confirm as far as healings? Pohl: Yes, in Winnipeg. Branham came to Canada at that time and he preached at a number of Apostolic churches in Canada. The first church was the church of our moderator in Winnipeg, who brought him into Canada. And Mr. Branham had his campaign there. Then he came later on to Saskatoon. When the campaign was in progress in Winnipeg, the newspaper (one of the large city newspapers) was giving considerable coverage to the meetings, and they indicated that there were a lot of people healed. They were favorable to this church, and advertised it and gave news reports that quite a few people were healed. But later on that same editor sent out some reporters to check on some of these people that they
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
89
had written up in the paper weeks before. [The reporters were] to check up and see whether these people who were supposedly healed at that time, were still healed, were still alive, or whatever. And when these reporters went back, they discovered that these people had died, or were in the same state or in a worse state than they were before. So, the editor then put it in the paper that these cases had turned out to be phonies, and that these people weren‘t healed after all. And there was something wrong with these so-called miracles and healings. But when the pastor of the church saw these reports in the paper, he went to the editor rather disturbed and not very happy about the situation, and he confronted the editor: ―Why do you do this to our church? You‘re hurting the reputation of our church, and you shouldn‘t do that to us.‖ And the editor said words something to this effect, ―Well, pastor, if the healings are genuine, you don‘t have to worry, do you?‖ And I thought to myself later on when I heard this, well, that editor certainly had a lot of common sense, because if they‘re genuine, why worry? If they‘re not, well then they should be exposed--which is what the paper did. And the editor said, ―Pastor, we gave you good coverage when Mr. Branham was here.‖ The pastor had to admit they did. ―Now,‖ he said, ―we owe it to our people to give them the rest of the story.‖ And he said, ―That‘s what we found.‖ He said to the pastor, ―I‘ll tell you what I‘ll do, if you can bring me one genuine case of a genuine healing, I‘ll give you the front page.‖ And I was told right in that pastor‘s home that they couldn‘t find one. O Timothy: Not one? Pohl: Not one. O Timothy: I understand there was a radio pastor whose wife supposedly was healed, and also a man with four students in the college. Could you tell me about those two? Pohl: Oh, yes. Yes. The first one I would relate to is a man from a little place near Regina, Saskatchewan. He and his wife were staunch Christians in our denomination. Very fine family. They had four children, and they were all attending our Bible school at that time, in which I was on staff. We knew these children very well--such very fine children, and young people, and a very fine family. One day during the healing campaign, the phone rang in our dorm and I answered it in our office there, and here was this man phoning from the airport. He‘d flown his wife in from near Regina, and he said, ―We‘re here. We want Branham to pray for my wife. She‘s dying of cancer. What shall we do?‖ Well, I said, ―Bring her down to the Bible school dorm.‖ And he knew very well where that was. I said, ―I‘ll meet you at the south door, and we‘ll put her in a room, and I‘ll see that Branham prays for her.‖ Which he did, and after the meeting that night we proceeded to take Branham from room to room, and of course we had her in mind very much. And we brought him into her room, and the husband was there, too. Branham prayed for her and pronounced her healed. Well, there was great rejoicing on the part of all of us. We really were rejoicing that the Lord had healed this woman. [We were rejoicing] for the sake of the whole family. He had given them this story, of course, that ―she‘s still going to be sick, though she‘s healed; she‘s going to feel pretty bad.‖ So, they flew back as soon as they could. They wouldn‘t stay around. We didn‘t have the facilities to take care of sick people there. There was just a dormitory, and so they went back as soon as they could.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
90
About 10 to 14 days later, in that time frame, I was sitting in the office in the Bible school. Branham was gone; the meetings were over. The door opened to the main building, and I could hear footsteps, then a knock on the office door. In came this gentleman. Of course I recognized him immediately, but I saw that his face was very downcast; he was really under pressure and a heavy burden. So I invited him to sit down, and I said, ―Brother,‖ I said, ―what‘s on your heart?‖ And he said, ―Brother Pohl, you were standing beside my wife when she was sick in one of the rooms in the dorm. Mr. Branham prayed for her, and he pronounced her healed.‖ I said, ―Yes, I was right there.‖ He said, ―Tell me, how is it that my wife who was healed ten days ago (somewhere in that time frame), is now in the grave?‖ He said, ―Tell me, how that can be?‖ Well, it really hit him hard, and it hit me hard too, because that‘s the first I heard that she had died. We hadn‘t heard that she had died. So here he was all broken up and he wanted an explanation. What could I tell him? I think that‘s one of the hardest questions I‘ve ever had to answer in my life. Why is she dead, if she was healed? And I was witness. He couldn‘t figure this out, a very fine Christian, and I felt for him. To this day I don‘t know what I said, but I know we wept together and we prayed together. I could have said this: ―Brother, your faith failed, or your wife‘s faith failed.‖ What help would I have been to him? I mean, that‘s a terrible thing to do. I wouldn‘t dare say that to him, to anyone. He was broken. He had enough to burden him down at this stage without saying, ―Your faith failed you.‖ That was the wrong thing to say, so I didn‘t say it. I could have said that, because that‘s the feeling behind a lot of these cases. The healer will say, well ―Your faith failed, and it‘s not my fault.‖ But, I don‘t see that that is the case in Scripture either--where people‘s faith failed, and they lost their healing after God healed, or the Lord healed them, or the Apostles healed them. So, it‘s ridiculous. Anyway, he left then, and of course we prayed for him, and so on. But it really was a difficult blow to this man and his family. Then the other party was--I recall so well--was a pastor from Port Arthur, Ontario, which is now called Thunderbay, Ontario. (They combined two cities, Port Arthur and Port William.] This man was a Pentecostal pastor, had a radio broadcast and, I understand, quite a sizable church. He flew his wife in and the nurse to Saskatoon which was quite a trip--quite costly. And again I had the phone call from the airport and placed them in a room there eventually in the dorm. And when the meeting was over, and the prayer line was over in the church, I brought Branham into the dorm and he prayed for this lady as well. He prayed also for the nurse. The nurse was deaf. He prayed for her healing, and claimed that she was healed. He also claimed that the pastor‘s wife was healed of cancer. Well, there was great rejoicing. Let me tell you, we rejoiced together, because I thoroughly believed in Branham all this time, I thought he was just ... just it. He was God‘s man. We rejoiced together, and then Branham left. And the husband (the pastor) said to me, ―Now, Brother Pohl,‖ he said, ―I‘ve spent thousands of dollars to try to get help for my wife, on doctors, and this and that and the other, medicines.‖ He said, ―I really can‘t afford it, but here‖-- and he wrote out a sizable check. He said, ―I can‘t afford it, but Branham is worth it.‖ He said, ―My wife is healed.‖ He took Branham at his word. See, it wasn‘t anything else; he just believed Branham. And here was this sizable check. He said, ―Give it to Branham.‖ Which I did, the next day. Later on, about three, four weeks later, I left for Ontario. I was missionary secretary of our denomination, and I visited some of our churches in Ontario. And in the process of visiting our churches,
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
91
I came to Port Arthur, Port William. We had a church in Port William, and one of the first things I did when I got to Port William was to ask the pastors, ―What about pastor so and so in Port Arthur?‖ I named him. I said, ―How‘s his wife doing?‖ I said, ―She was healed in the meetings in Saskatoon.‖ And I saw a strange look that came over their faces as I asked that question. And I thought in my heart, ―Oh, no, not another one.‖ Just like the family I was telling you about in Saskatoon, from Regina. And I said in my heart, ―No, not another one.‖ And they said, ―Haven‘t you heard, haven‘t you heard? She‘s dead. She passed away.‖ Well that was another blow to me, because I began to realize that something was wrong with this kind of healing. This was counterfeit; something was drastically wrong. Of all people, here was a pastor who loved the Lord and served the Lord, and, you know, why did this happen? Did his faith fail? Did his wife‘s faith fail? He had a whole church behind him. But no, she passed away. I was told that the worst thing was that this man (the pastor) had a very good radio broadcast in the area. He went on the air as soon as he got home, and he announced that they had been to Saskatoon to the Branham meetings and had wonderful meetings there, and there were many healings, and amongst them his wife was gloriously healed in those meetings. I‘m sure that many people rejoiced, were happy to hear that. But, it wasn‘t very long after that, a few days later, he had to get on the same radio station and mention the fact that his wife had passed away. And I was told this gave his radio program a severe blow and setback, because the world at large--I mean they think too, they‘re not stupid--here one day she was gloriously healed, and a few days later she‘s dead. You know, this doesn‘t add up. We had more of those cases--these are just two exceptional ones--but there were others that passed away. I stood beside bed after bed, person after person who was pronounced healed and yet, where were they? They passed away. So there was something very wrong with this type of healing.
These stories are heart breaking. And it‘s sickening to know that some of these people used to pass on huge sums of money to Mr. Branham as a sign of gratitude. To read further about this, please consult Why I Left the Tongues Movement by Alfred H. Pohl. That was just the tip of the iceberg It would be extremely negligent for me to imply that the list presented in this chapter even comes close to representing the entire body of absurdities that were offered to us by William Branham. The fact is that these are just the ones that are perhaps most widely known and believed. Almost all of Branham‘s sermons contain absurdities that are irreconcilable with any form of reality. I began going through some Message books and before I could even read a considerable portion of his recorded sermons, I had already accumulated the list presented below: Newspapers reported that it‘s been discovered that the world is square (65-0822M, par 62) Women perpetrate or participate in 98% of all US cities crimes (65-0221M, par 169) The USA has more divorce cases than all the rest of the world (54-0509, par 226) Girl are walking almost naked but female dogs don‘t (65-0221M, par 179) US government statistics show that 80% of babies born to smoking mothers die before they‘re 18 months old (50-0813E, par 16)
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
92
Science destroys; you cannot depend on it (56-0420, par 49)
You can inject embryo cells from an unborn fetus into a human being, and the cells will grow into the respective organs (CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.3, par 102)
Science proves that anything that doesn‘t move is dead (60-0804, par 52)
Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) are angels (65-0815, par 269)
Science says that five stars are going to fall together (62-0124, par 121)
FBI files prove that motion pictures started America‘s decline (56-0426, par 10)
Joseph Branham will be a prophet (60-0522E, par 220)
If you‘re born out of wedlock, you‘ll not make it for the rapture (64-0823E, par 186)
Billy Graham is special because his name ends with ‗ham‘ like Abraham (64-0415, par 70)
Woman was designed by Satan (65-0221M, par 121)
Epilepsy is the medical term for a devil (50-0820E, par 9)
The woman is the lowest of all animals on earth (65-0221M par 182)
Animals acquire the color of the soil they eat from (54-0103E, par 154)
People will be picked up by UFOs when going up for the rapture (65-0822M, par 68)
During the creation, plants grew from seeds from another civilization (63-0321, par 94)
Satan is everywhere (59-1219, par 124)
Satan set up his headquarters in Paris (54-0509, par 159)
Satan moved his headquarters to Hollywood (54-0509, par 160)
An unborn baby is not alive (64-0830M, par 277)
The Bible said that Roosevelt would impose a three or four term dictatorship (54-0509, par 203)
In South Africa during a meeting, a ―primitive‖ woman quickly gave birth with no help, spanked the baby, started nursing him and continued listening to the sermon (58-0617, par 60)
The moment a believer becomes skeptical and gains an objective outlook towards Branham and his Message, many of his claims become laughable. This, however, is not the case with Message believers. It defies all sense for people to continue believing every word this man said no matter how absurd it might be. If you believe in an infallible God, how can you believe that he can tell us such things?
Branham Was Extremely Unreliable and Error-prone
93
94
CHAPTER 6
The Dark Side of
the Message
Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.
VOLTAIRE
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
95
The cruelest variety of misogyny After I decided to do some further reading on the Message after I was no longer involved with it, I read more Message books than I had ever read before. I had never gone through the sermon Marriage and Divorce in its entirety before; I had only read portions of it and listened to the rest expounded upon from the pulpit. I have read of how women have been mistreated and hated upon in the past, but never had I come across the level of verbal hatred towards women that I found in that book. No sane person would stand before an audience and utter the kind of nonsense Branham came up with for this sermon. The Marriage and Divorce Message book should suffice as a good and valid reason why William Branham should not be taken seriously by any right-thinking person. Women have been historically oppressed in horrendous ways. And in many parts of the world, they still are mistreated just because they fell on the wrong side of the chromosome combination. Whether you‘re talking about the Muslim world where they still have to cover themselves up fully save for the eyes, in Africa where they endure horrifyingly painful female genital mutilation, carry out most of the homestead chores and endure atrocious domestic violence, in India where they still have honor killings of women who disgraced their families by falling in love outside their caste, or even in the USA where basic rights such as suffrage were granted fairly recently. Unfortunately, the Message is no exception when it comes to oppressing women. William Branham says that women are inferior because Eve was deceived in the Garden of Eden, but Adam wasn‘t. Because one woman erred very many ages ago, all women should henceforth be treated badly. There are numerous other biblical verses that male chauvinists use to support their appalling opinions about women and we would tackle each and every one of them if our scope allowed us to. But this section deals with Mr. Branham‘s opinions about women so we‘ll painfully restrict ourselves to this topic. Let‘s go back to the beginning: Mr. Branham seems to know something we don‘t about where women came from: ―And Satan is really working on her today (in these last days), because he is her designer. I could prove that now, to go right back at the beginning. Who started to work on her, Adam or Satan? God or Satan? See? That's her designer. It's her chief weapon to throw men to her filth… You may question me about Satan being her designer, but that's the truth. Satan designed her. He still does it.‖ (MARRIAGE.AND.DIVORCE_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-13 SUNDAY_ 65-0221M, par 125)
The Bible, the text that Message believers claim to believe in, says: ―Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.‖1 Here we have a clear contradiction between the Bible and what Mr. Branham teaches. When you bring this verse to the attention of the Message believer, you can be sure they‘ll point you to the fact that designing is different from making. In short, they‘ll imply that God contracted the devil to design the woman and then used that blueprint when making the woman (I have heard a Message
The Dark Side of the Message
96
preacher say this), even though this is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible they claim to base their beliefs on. Some neutral Christians would consider this proposition of collaboration between the devil and God in the making of the woman to be extremely blasphemous, but of course according to many Message believers, Mr. Branham possessed powers to add to what the scriptures said.
William Branham also has an opinion about the mental aptitude of women. He basically says that they are the most deceivable beings on earth. (Even among animals as we shall see shortly).
―There cannot be nothing else; there's nothing made to be that way. Also there is nothing that could be so easily deceived as a woman. Now, the fall proves this statement to be true, the fall in the beginning.‖ (MARRIAGE.AND.DIVORCE_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-13 SUNDAY_ 65-0221M, par 110)
Women have now taken advantage of the equal opportunities being increasingly offered to them by society to do amazing things. We now have women in the highest areas of life: presidents, Nobel laureates, astronauts, nuclear scientists, Supreme Court judges – any particular field has female top performers. This goes to show that women are not any less intelligent than men. It‘s interesting to ask ourselves whether Branham held these opinions about his mother, wives and daughters. And if not, I wonder what gave him the idea that it was okay for him to spew such hatred against other peoples‘ mothers, wives and daughters.
According to this prophet, a woman is the filthiest among all females ever created, because all other female animals are original creatures but she isn‘t. In short, Branham is of the opinion that our grandmothers, mothers, sisters, daughters and wives/girlfriends belong to the filthiest group of animals on earth – they are women, after all. He says that women are more immoral than dogs. Dogs will attack and inflict deadly injuries on people, eat human corpses and mate with every other dog – but they allegedly still possess higher morals than women. He further says that women can stoop lower than a pig, dog or any other animal:
―Notice, there's nothing designed to stoop so low or be filthy but a woman. A dog can't do it; a hog can't do it; a bird can't do it; no animal is immoral, nor it can be, for it is not designed so it can be. A female hog can't be immoral; a female dog can't be immoral; a female bird can't be immoral. A woman is the only thing can do it.‖ (MARRIAGE.AND.DIVORCE_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-13 SUNDAY_ 65-0221M, par 115)
―There is no hog, no dog, or no other animal designed like her or can stoop as low as she can stoop. Now, that is true. With regards to my sisters, I just want you to watch. No animal can be immoral. You call the dog a slut (the female dog). You call the male--hog a sow, but her morals is a million miles beyond many a Hollywood stars. That's how low she's designed to stoop. She can't... Just think of this now: there's nothing in the world made in God's creation that can be immoral, stoop that low.‖ (MARRIAGE.AND.DIVORCE_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-13 SUNDAY_ 65-0221M, par 112)
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
97
Branham further says that unlike any other animal, women are designed for filth and unclean living. This, he says is because women will have sex for pleasure and will have it any time, but animals mate only for procreation. William Branham portrays women as thick, filthy and as creatures that are always ready for sex. ―She is designed alone for filth and unclean living. A dog can't; no other female can. It's just the woman that can. A dog or any other animals: once a year, and that for her babies, not for sexual pleasure, but for her babies. The old sow hog, the old slut dog: once a year, one moment; that's for her babies. But a woman is designed for any time she desires. (I've got some stuff crossed out here now; you can imagine the rest.) A dog can't; woman can. (I hope that the Holy Spirit reveals to you the rest of this I crossed out here.)‖ (MARRIAGE.AND.DIVORCE_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-13 SUNDAY_ 65-0221M, par 118) The seventh messenger also has something to say about ‗immoral women‘. In a manner that suggests that it‘s worse for a woman to be immoral than it is for a man, Branham says that a woman who lacks morals is a ‗human garbage can‘: ―An immoral woman is the lowest thing that can be thought of in the earth. Excuse this, young ladies. She's nothing but a human garbage can, a "sex exposal." That's all she is. A immoral woman is a human sexual garbage can, a pollution where filthy, dirty, ornery, lowdown filth is disposed by her. Why's she made this way for? For deception. Every sin that ever was on the earth was caused by a woman.‖ (MARRIAGE.AND.DIVORCE_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-13 SUNDAY_ 65-0221M, par 168) In the animal kingdom, there is a huge variety of organisms. There are deadly parasites, snails, slugs, snakes and monkeys just to name a few. But among all these, the woman is the lowest of them all. She falls at the bottom of the pack – according to Mr. Branham. ―All right. When in God's sight, the Word, she is the lowest of all animals that God put on the earth... Watch.‖ (MARRIAGE.AND.DIVORCE_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-13 SUNDAY_ 65-0221M, par 182) It is bizarre to say the least for Branham to paint such a terrible picture of women in comparison to their male counterparts, and sadly, animals. First of all we unfortunately need to remind ourselves here that women are human beings. William Branham wants you to believe that a woman is ‗lower than an animal‘, but that only demonstrates serious mental issues on the part of the speaker. Secondly, men desire sex in equal, and some would argue a higher measure, than women. I don‘t know why that fact doesn‘t make men ‗lower than animals‘. Some animals display increased sexual activity during some seasons – but the woman is simply not like that: she can be responsive to certain sexual gestures directed to her by men, and she can direct the same to men, without checking the calendar.
Ironically, one may argue that men have historically demonstrated a greater ability to engage in horrendous atrocities compared to their female counterparts. If we were to come up with a list of
The Dark Side of the Message
98
the most evil people in history, obvious candidates would include the likes of Idi Amin Dada, Pol Pot, King Leopold II of Belgium, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and so forth. The first woman to make it to the list would appear way down - at the bottom of the pack. In real fact, it‘s the women who have been victims of cruel treatment from men.
William Branham suffered from a strong hatred towards women. He says that his struggle with hatred towards women began in his youth:
―But I can remember when my father's still up there running, I had to be out there with water and stuff, see young ladies that wasn't over seventeen, eighteen years old, up there with men my age now, drunk. And they'd have to sober them up and give them black coffee to get home to cook their husband's supper. Oh, something like that, I said, "I..." This was my remark then, "They're not worth a good clean bullet to kill them with it." That's right. And I hated women. That's right. And I just have to watch every move now, to keep from still thinking the same thing.‖ (LIFE.STORY_ LA.CA FOOTPRINTS.BOOK SUNDAY_ 59-0419A, par 87)
It is now clear that he never dealt successfully with his hatred towards women, and this caused him to lead millions of people who call themselves Message believers to consider women inferior. Let‘s now turn our attention to Branham‘s opinions about the role of women in society. It‘s important to note right from the start that Branham was of the opinion that women should stay at home. They shouldn‘t go out to pursue careers and take jobs. To put it like he did, they should be behind the stove cooking. In other words, if a woman has a singing talent, she shouldn‘t go out and pursue a music career. If a woman can sprint like Usain Bolt, she shouldn‘t pursue a career on the track. Women should also avoid careers like law and medicine – which require long hours of input from the individual. They should also avoid working at all especially since we have men out there without jobs - whose employment they might be precluding.
―They've took our women and stripped them, out yonder in the offices, and the driving taxicabs, and up-and-down the street. where they ought to be at home behind the stove cooking, and fixing the dinners.‖ (INVASION.OF.THE.USA_ JEFF.IN V-26 N-1 SUNDAY_ 54-0509, par 183)
―Now, I'm not much of this modernistic taste of women working. When I seen these women with these uniforms on riding around in this city on motorcycles as police, it's a disgrace to the--any city that'd let a woman do that as many men that's without work. It shows the modern thinking of our city; it shows the degrading. We don't have to have them women out there like that. They ain't got no business out there like that. When God gave a man a wife, He gave him the best thing He could give him outside of salvation; but when one goes to trying to take a man's place, then she's about the worse thing that he could get ahold of.‖ (CHOOSING.OF.A.BRIDE_ LA.CA V-2 N-28 THURSDAY_ 65-0429E, par 64)
From the above quotes, the prophet says that the primary role of women is to be ―behind the stove cooking‖. In short, they should stay at home and serve their husbands. He also says that women shouldn‘t work - period. Therefore in summary, women are simply to be kept home by men as baby machines and house servants.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
99
Mr. Branham goes a step further in declaring the woman‘s inferiority by saying that women do not contribute a seed of reproduction. He says that they only provide a medium for incubating the baby until it‘s born.2 This is despite the fact that we know that conception takes place through the fusion of a male sperm and a female ovum, and children will always acquire traits from both parents. After they have found the love of their life, gotten married and are preparing to live happily ever after, wives may be put away on very flimsy grounds. William Branham said that husbands may put away their wives for cutting their hair3 and keeping their pre-marital sexual encounters secret.4 Good riddance to a prophet who thinks that I should put away my wife if she thinks she‘ll look prettier if she has short hair. Speaking of looking pretty, Branham said that when he saw a woman with eye shadow on, she looked liked someone with leprosy or pellagra.5 That‘s some pretty rough speech especially because it‘s coming from the pulpit. The prophet is also of the opinion that allowing women to vote is an evil thing.6 Message believers will take great offence if you call their religion a cult or a sect. They say they are different from the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah‘s Witnesses and the like. I remember one morning a Christian radio station was holding a discussion about the criteria for identifying a cult when someone called in and talked about a new cult he had heard about, the Message of the Hour. In response, a Message believer called in and aggressively defended the Message, saying that they do not satisfy the common characteristics of a typical cult. I was proud of this gallant soldier for defending the truth I believed in against accusations of cultism. Now I am not sure anymore. As time goes by, it becomes clear that Branhamism is definitely a fully fledged Christian cult. Their horrendous view of women confirms that Branhamism is indeed a cult. How can people continue to religiously follow a man who says that women are the thickest of all animals, the filthiest of all females, designed for unclean living, should be behind the stove, human garbage cans for not fulfilling their moral obligations, the lowest of all animals, creatures who have sex any time they want and who should serve as house laborers and be kicked out if they cut their hair or reveal previously secret sexual relations to their husbands? Instead of thinking twice about his contemptible views about women, Branham‘s followers continue to believe that this hatred came directly from God. Mistreating women is a typical cult tendency. And Branhamism is no exception. Characteristically, women in the Message wear skirts that almost sweep the floor, are not allowed wear pants or jewelry and are not supposed to work. Branham made them believe that doing these things will cause them to end up in hell. Women are to stay silent and submissive to their husbands and are supposed to believe that they are inferior to men, since it‘s what the Message teaches.
The Dark Side of the Message
100
During different times in history, it was believed that black people, Jews, women – different kinds of people – were inferior to the rest. Most of us are now at the level where we can see that this is not the case. Believers should hold Branham‘s ministry accountable for the prophet‘s hate campaigns against women. And most importantly, such unfortunate literature as Marriage and Divorce by William Branham should never be made available to children.
OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CULT
The vile propositions of „elective love‟ and the irredeemable „seeds of the serpent‟
William Branham comes to the table with a contemptible proposition: that before the ―foundations of the world‖ were laid, God loved some people and decided he would redeem them (the Bride), and hated others7 – the latter of course, bound for hell. This proposition is asserted throughout Branham‘s ministry as a more stringent form of the ―predestination‖ doctrine. In short, it‘s not a matter of choice for most people. A huge majority of the human race were created purposefully so that they could burn in hell. There is nothing ―we‖ can do about it. If there is anyone who does not see the wickedness behind this sort of scheme, then they have fallen victim to severe brainwashing by dangerous religious dogmas of people like Branham.
What William Branham proposes about the ‗descendants of Cain‘ is another perplexing opinion. The prophet preached that all ‗descendants of the serpent‘, and therefore Cain, are predestined for hell, while the sons of God are descended from Adam and are predestined for heaven.8 He additionally says that the children of Cain have brought about modern education, infrastructure, technologies, weapons and architecture; they are religious and like their ancestor, the devil. They are headed for the lake of fire.9
The serpent seed doctrine carries heavy implications. If you are descended from Cain, you cannot be saved and will definitely end up in hell. This idea carries a painful pile of problems. First and foremost, it is worth remembering that Branham‘s parents were not Christians and they believed in strange things such as fortune telling. Some authors suggest that this background could have played a role in the occultist tone of some of his controversial teachings. If Branham‘s parents never came to believe in the Message of their day and instead continued holding on to their strange superstitious beliefs, this means, according to the teachings of Christianity, that they were destined for hell and may be contacted there today, implying that they descended from the serpent. Given that they gave birth to Branham, this would imply that Branham is also descended from the serpent, and is predestined for hell.
This is the fundamental problem with the serpent seed doctrine – the idea that our family tree dictates whether or not we‘ll go to heaven. In one single family tree, it is possible to find Message believers, other Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists – who all share the same blood. Suggesting that all Christians who will make it to heaven will be descendants of one person as opposed to the other is absurd. And looking someone into the face and telling them that they will go to hell because of their genealogy requires a remarkable level of heartlessness.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
101
Rather deprived lifestyles Next in the line of the cultic aspects of the Message is in the area of race relations. Racist innuendos occur many times in the Branham‘s Message books – some are rather offensive such as when he termed Africans as poor dark heathens; and some are simply false generalizations such as when he said that Africans are ‗big burly, heavy fat-like people.‘ However the cultic tendency we wish to focus on is his prohibition of interracial marriages. Branham claimed to derive his instructions from the Bible; so where did he get his idea that interracial marriages are impermissible? ―Now, I don't believe in mixing marriages. I believe that a white man should not marry a colored girl, or a colored girl marry a white man, or a yellow marry a colored, or a white, or a... I believe the brown, black, white, and races of people are like a flower garden of God, and I do not believe they should be crossed up. I believe that's the way God made them, and I believe that's the way they should remain. What... It fools me that I seen some real pretty colored girl, intelligent, nice looking kid, just as pretty as any woman you'd want to see... What does she want to marry a white man and have mulatto children? What would an intelligent colored girl want with such a thing as that? Is because that something... that communist... And how would a--a fine a-a-a colored man want to marry a white woman and have mulatto children?‖ (QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS_ JEFF.IN COD SUNDAY_ 64-0830E, par 166, 167) This statement points us to an ill version of race relations propounded by Mr. Branham. A person may marry from any race they‘d wish to – it‘s one of the biggest victories the contemporary world can boast of – and the Bible that Message believers claim to believe in does not prohibit interracial marriages. This prohibition was Branham‘s own creation. I believe that every person who is a parent to a biracial child loves their son or daughter despite the color of their skin. Therefore it‘s hard to understand why Branham asks ‗why anyone would want such a thing as that‘, referring to people wanting to marry outside their race and having biracial children. There are people in this world who do not identify themselves with any one single race, such as a child born to a biracial father and a biracial mother. Several decades ahead, given how international boundaries are virtually collapsing – the world will have a huge population of mixed race individuals and the idea that all people (including mixed race individuals) should only marry from their own race will simply cease to make much sense. In going against interracial marriage, Branham shared the podium with people and groups we‘d rather not mention.
Another major hallmark of cultic groups is religious isolationism. All cults isolate themselves from other people with varying levels – with some being astonishingly extreme such as the poor fellows at Waco, Texas. Message believers consider the Devil as the head of all other Christians in the world. The precise terms used for Christians who are not Message believers are ―people bearing the mark of the beast‖. Message believers are not to be overly entangled with non
The Dark Side of the Message
102
Message believers, the justification for the tendency being the Biblical instruction that Christians should not yoke themselves with non believers. They believe that it is not enough to believe in Jesus Christ in order to make it for the rapture; you need to believe in Branham‘s Message. Message believers do not marry outside their faith. Typically, a Message believer is not allowed to marry even any other kind of Christian. Many Message churches punish this serious crime by excommunication. This tendency is shared by many other kinds of cults.
Next in line when it comes to characteristics of cults are their numerous extra-biblical rules and regulations. For instance, Mormon Christians are not allowed to drink coffee and tea or wear some kinds of clothes; prescription drugs, dating before you are sixteen, watching many kinds of movies and eating meat are highly discouraged. Jehovah‘s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists also appear high up in the ranking when it comes to cults with the highest number of things you‘re not supposed to do. The thing to note about such ridiculous rules is that they were instituted mostly by the founders of the cults and are not derived from the Bible those people claim to believe in. A common creed in such cults is that their leader was in direct communication with God and therefore those were instructions from God.
Branhamism is not an exception either. William Branham, and subsequently his followers, came up with a huge list of things we‘re not supposed to do. In general, there are quite a number of things Message followers are not supposed to do. Different churches will differ in their adherence to these rules, but generally, Message believers are supposed to adhere to a long list of ridiculous rules: Don‘t own a television Don‘t celebrate the pagan holiday, Christmas Don‘t join politics Don‘t wear pants if you‘re a woman Don‘t work if you‘re a woman Don‘t wear lipstick, nail color or any other body paints Don‘t wear makeup Don‘t wear jewelry Don‘t wear skirts that don‘t sweep the floor Don‘t drink alcoholic beverages Don‘t dance Don‘t marry any other another man if you‘re a previously engaged woman Don‘t marry any other man if you‘re a divorced woman Don‘t marry a non-believer Don‘t sue another Message believer Don‘t wear shorts (both men and women) Don‘t swim with persons of the opposite sex Don‘t hold any position of responsibility in church if you‘re a woman
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
103
Don‘t become a pastor if your wife was not a virgin when you got married Don‘t watch Hollywood movies Don‘t marry outside your race Don‘t hug people of the opposite sex before marriage Don‘t cut your hair if you‘re a woman Don‘t have long hair if you‘re a man Don‘t listen to any non-gospel music Don‘t attend churches of other Christian denominations
Cults will also come with their handsome share of social problems. They create a myriad of problems in social circles such as the family. I am actively engaged in a forum of former Message believers10, and a lot of people in that forum can relate to stories of strains in family ties brought about by belief in the Message, including many dysfunctional marriages. In the Message, those who abandon the faith are shunned. It‘s common to hear of parents who want nothing to do with their children or people abandoning their spouses after they leave the Message. Cult members alienate themselves from other friends and family members who are not members of their faith. Typically, when it comes to choosing friends, children growing up in the Message are restricted to other children in the Message. In family and social gatherings, some Message believers will begin to talk ill of people – such as women who wear trousers and makeup - despite the fact that many people in that gathering might not be believers, putting the non-believers in a very uncomfortable position – very disconcerting if you‘ve been a witness to such a scenario. Message believers will also often avoid doing many normal and even noble things because they might fall into sin. The women don‘t join the military or the police force because they will be required to wear pants. Many of the women also do not enjoy swimming since the necessary costumes would be sinful to wear; these sisters, are they‘re commonly called in the Message, will be advised to avoid careers such as medicine that will require long hours of absence from home, where they‘re supposed to be. They will also avoid careers in sports, such as tennis and volleyball – because their religion precludes them from putting on the required clothing. The men are no exception either – they can forget a career in many kinds of sports such as football (‗soccer‘ if you‘re American) because they‘re not supposed to wear shorts.
Church leadership is typically dictatorial and coercive. They move beyond providing spiritual guidance and leadership to enacting rules to govern each and every aspect of their members‘ lives. Each Message church will have its own set of rules in addition to the list provided above. For example, every sin that happens to have become public through gossip has to be repented
The Dark Side of the Message
104
publicly by being paraded before the congregation, with or without your willingness. A Message church is a total North Korea.
All kinds of world news are received with a twisted outlook. Minor seismic disturbances or tremors within the state of California are declared to be proof that the rapture is at hand despite the fact that this area has had these disturbances since time immemorial because the region is near a boundary between two tectonic plates. Should the ―Big One‖ come any time soon resulting in the ‗sinking‘ of California, this will become a Message believers‘ world – they‘ll use this as a corroboration of the truth of the Message, despite the fact that Branham is not the originator of the concept of the ‗sinking‘ of California. Different parts of the state are on two different plates that may move in different directions. Considerably large movements, however, happen over millions of years. The idea that the entire state will go under the ocean when this earthquake takes place is indeed strange.
Other genres of news do not escape the perverting scrutiny of the Message either. News of conflicts in the Middle East – especially those involving Israel – are received with a characteristic assertion that the prophet indeed said that the area would know no peace – and it makes them happy that the prophet‘s words have been confirmed to be true – despite the fact that thousands of people continue to die from these conflicts. When the holocaust is discussed on the tube, they‘ll happily tell you that the prophet said that the murder of millions of Jews was totally God‘s plan to gather them up and they‘re totally oblivious of the fact that it was a cruel, inhumane slaughter. Also, the nation of Israel can never do any wrong. Even if they engage in illegal war tactics and oppress a clearly budding Palestinian nation, they‘re right in doing so. The prophet trained them to think like that.
There are many other aspects of this religion that sets apart its adherents from other people, and the new skeptic knows only too well how ridiculous the Message lifestyle looks in retrospect. One of the great things about the victory of breaking free from a cult is that first breath of fresh air. Once you‘ve been totally liberated, you get the bird-out-of-prison feeling. It‘s hard to forget the first time you‘ll look at your friend who is not a Message believer and feel truly connected. It‘s indeed a breath of fresh air when you look at all women differently and respect them. I could go on and on; but when you experience this feeling – and I do wish, dear reader, that you experience it - you‘ll definitely get the point.
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
105
106
CHAPTER 7
A Final Word; and What to Expect from Believers
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
ENGLISH IDIOM
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
107
The question has been asked over and over again: why do people believe in the Message? And for some of us who were conditioned since birth to believe it, why do we continue to cling to it into adulthood? What‘s the coercive factor behind the extraordinary following the Message enjoys despite the numerous contradictions and additions to the Bible and reality the prophet taught? The answer to this question is simple and open for all to see: it‘s because of the supernatural events surrounding the prophet‘s entire life. If William Branham was an ordinary preacher with no powers to do anything extraordinary, he would‘ve have been dismissed a long time ago by the small number of people who would‘ve heard him preach because he most likely wouldn‘t even have been heard of beyond his locality. It‘s incontestable that Branham‘s supernatural events are the single most compelling factor for people to believe him. Message introduction cards will almost always have the photograph of the cloud and the pillar of fire photo. As a matter of fact, Message introduction cards will have a statement similar to ―God promised to send us a prophet in these last days… That prophet is William Branham… and the Lord confirmed this to us: when he was baptizing in the Ohio River… when he appeared on Mt. Sunset… vindicated his prophet by a pillar of fire… discerned the hearts of people…‖ Indeed without the supernatural aspects of Branham‘s life, Message believers have no case to present to people they‘re trying to convert. This is a sorry state of affairs as we shall see shortly. This is indeed the very same way many cults in existence today take in their daily breath of life: by invoking the supernatural abilities of their founders. And mind you many of these founders have dazzled hundreds of thousands of people with their extraordinary powers, just like William Branham. Message believers tend to have a false perception that William Branham is the true prophet because he had a great faith healing ministry that attracted hundreds of thousands of people; and a lot supernaturalism surrounding his life. If we followed this line of thinking, a lot of people can be validly declared true prophets. William Branham never came close to possessing exclusivity when it comes to faith healing abilities. Smith Wigglesworth was a British evangelist who began his healing ministry in the early 1900s. He dazzled hundreds of thousands just like William Branham. He used to lay his hands on people and there were many reports of people who had been healed through his prayers. He anointed people with oil and also passed out healing handkerchiefs like William Branham, one of which was sent to King George V. He had an amazing international ministry, travelling to many countries in North America, Europe, Africa, Oceania and Asia. Wigglesworth claimed to raise several people from the dead. Many people, including other evangelists, came forward and testified that they had witnessed God performing extraordinary miracles through Wigglesworth.
Oral Roberts is the next candidate for the faith healing discussion. His healing ministry amazed millions all over the world. He travelled to almost all continents in this world and gathered huge crowds and many claimed to have received miraculous healings as a result of Oral Robert‘s
A Final Word; and What to Expect from Believers
108
meetings. He claimed his life was surrounded by supernatural events, including visions of Jesus telling him to start various projects. He said that Jesus appeared to him in person in 1983 and instructed him to find a cure for cancer. It‘s safe to say William Branham‘s miracle ministry comes nowhere close to the success Robert‘s ministry achieved.
Let‘s not leave the faith healing podium without mentioning Aimee McPherson, founder of the Foursquare Church. Although she did not make faith healing the central focus of her ministry, many people claimed physical healing. Aimee vigorously pursued the idea of a bigger role of women in the church and was therefore obviously famous with Christian women in America. In around 1925 she began her famous tent revivals, and her preaching reached millions through the media.
Some other prominent Christian leaders are not credited with faith healing but they derive their influence from the supernatural events they say surrounded their lives. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Christian cult known as Mormonism, told us that he had extra ordinary events in his life. He said that he had his first vision in 1820 when God told him that all churches are false. He claimed that he had supernatural powers to locate treasure. He was visited one night by an angel named Moroni who gave him the golden plates among other artifacts, and describes many other paranormal events surrounding his life. Smith was taken at his word by some people and as a result, millions of people across the world are now affiliated to Mormonism.
Ellen White‘s ministry founded the Seventh Day Adventists movement. Supernatural events were reported around Ellen‘s life since 1844. She saw visions, one in which she saw the Advent people rising higher and entering the New Jerusalem. She also saw other visions, such as the new earth and the bridegroom visions. These supernatural events provided Adventists with proof that what they believed in was indeed true and that they indeed were headed for heaven.
These narrations are meant to help you realize one important thing - that Miracles, especially faith healing miracles, are not exclusive to Branham‘s ministry. There are many other people who have had successful faith healing campaigns before millions of people across the world just like William Branham. There are also many people who have had incredible mystic abilities, but they weren‘t even Christians. The authors of the Bible anticipated this scenario. To guard against such people coming against the doctrines the authors laid down, they told their audience that there would walk evil people on earth with powers to perform miracles and that there would be people in hell who performed miracles in Jesus‘ name during their time on earth (Mathew 7:22-23). Please take a moment, let that sink in. This was very prudent of them, given that people with amazing supernatural abilities exist across many religions.
The supernatural stories surrounding Branham‘s life played different roles in his ministry. We have the numerous stories told in books such as Owen Jorgensen‘s Supernatural series where it is told of how he had mystic abilities even in normal life situations, but many people (including many Message believers) have not heard of most of these stories. Then we have those that
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
109
Branham himself relied on in convincing people that he was a true prophet of God. He talked about them from the pulpit in many instances, and people strongly hold these supernatural events as evidence of God‘s endorsement of Branham‘s teachings. These are the events we‘d like to address. William Branham says that when he was born, a halo of light hovered over him. As a child, he would hear a strange voice over and over. The voice told him not to drink or smoke since a special job was awaiting him once he became of age. He says that one day, when he was baptizing the seventeenth person in the Ohio River, a voice spoke from the heavens and said that his Message would forerun the second coming of Jesus Christ. He claims that he made seven special prophecies that were all to come true. He claimed many other supernatural things, such as being visited by angels and numerous visions. These are indeed the events that convince people to believe that William Branham was a true prophet of God. These same kinds of events convince Mormons that Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God. These same varieties of events convince Seventh Day Adventists that Ellen White was God‘s true messenger. And the list continues. A Message believer will claim that Branham is an exception because the supernatural events surrounding the founders of the other religious groups cannot be proven to have truly happened. It‘s important to note that similarly, no one can truly confirm to us that most of the things Branham talks about truly happened. Surprisingly, the events Branham relies on the most are the hardest to verify. No one testified to us as having seen the pillar of fire when Branham was born. No one else heard the voices that haunted Branham during his childhood. We don‘t have any reports or witnesses who heard the voice talking to Branham at the Ohio River and telling him that his Message would forerun Jesus‘ second coming. We take Branham‘s word for it – we believe these stories just because he told them. Just like the Mormons take Joseph Smith‘s word, Adventists take Ellen‘s word and Muslims take Muhammad‘s word about the supernatural events surrounding their lives, Message believers take many of Branham‘s stories that he relies on to be factual despite the lack of evidence or witnesses to confirm them.
Some of these ‗supernatural‘ events and entities have been proven false or at best questionable, such as the Sunset cloud, the pillar of fire photograph and his healings which saw people ending up dead after they‘d been supposedly healed. As for the famous seven prophecies (about Hitler, Mussolini, Communism, driverless cars, morals in America, woman president and America reduced to debris), we need to realize that he told us about them after those very things contained in the prophecies had already happened, or were clearly imminent, claiming that ‗he said back in 1933 that they would happen‘; the rest being meaningless – such as the prophecy about ―declining morals.‖ Again we‘re supposed to take his word for it and believe that in 1933, he actually prophesied that those things would happen, despite the lack of records or witnesses to the alleged prophecies.
A Final Word; and What to Expect from Believers
110
A good proportion of the supernatural aspects Branham relied on from the pulpit fall under two categories: false or unverifiable. Those that are false include stories such as the cloud on Mt. Sunset and the cases of miraculous healings that did not succeed, leaving the sick people dead even after being supposedly healed. Those that are unverifiable include stories such as the pillar of fire shortly after his birth and the voice that spoke from heaven during the Ohio River baptism telling him that his Message would forerun the second coming of Christ. Yet these very events that are either unverifiable or false form the very basis upon which many people believe that William Branham was the true prophet of God! This, indeed, is a sorry state of affairs. The supernatural events surrounding Branham‘s life are not proof that his Message is true. If anything, those supernatural events that have been proven false, such as the Sunset cloud, confirm that he was extremely unreliable.
Weak argumentation by adherents of the Message
When not parading Branham‘s supernatural abilities to prove the Message right, believers use other equally unhelpful methods. Despite the irrefutable evidence that clearly exposes Branham‘s deceptions, Believers who have come across such evidence continue to believe that the Message is true. Let‘s explore this strange phenomenon. Through a process we may call rationalization; we may fall back to a convenient explanation whenever anything we believe in has been proven false. Some thinkers refer to this process as ad hoc reasoning, which essentially involves coming up an explanation why you‘re still right instead of accepting the newly learned facts as they are. This is one of the most frequently used methods by Message apologists.
Demonstrating this course of action is not difficult. To show that any statement can be rationalized as truth, we‘ll use a statement that is not true for the purposes of this discussion. Let‘s say for instance that Branham said that the biblical Cain served two terms as president of the United States. A former Believer, after doing the necessary investigations, comes forward and refutes this statement. She then presents the argument before her former pastor. The pastor, after prayerfully searching for an answer (and of course verifying that Cain was not president of the USA), responds to this refutation by saying that Branham meant that one of the presidents of the USA would be possessed by the spirit of Cain, and therefore the statement is true.
The initial false statement has been rationalized by spontaneously creating another idea that was not in the original statement, that an actual president would be possessed by the spirit of Cain. This preposterous procedure of rationalization is used to excuse the myriad of deceptions evident throughout Branham‘s sermons which Message believers believe to be God‘s voice, including strange allegations of the world being square, successfully injecting animal embryo cells into the human blood stream, woman being designed by Satan and so forth. This is the first method to look out for.
When an individual, with the aim of protecting a false doctrine, spontaneously creates a new explanation that was clearly not included in the original statement, your initial reaction needs to be a rejection of that creation. A good example of this wanting method is demonstrated by
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
111
Rebecca Branham, who after noting the irreconcilable aspects of the Sunset cloud story, changed the story in her Only Believe magazine to imply that Branham didn‘t say he was on the hunting trip when the cloud appeared. She said that Branham saw a vision that he would go on the hunting trip several days later – despite the numerous quotes in which Branham says that the cloud appeared during his hunting trip. Another barren argumentation method commonly used by Message proponents is circular reasoning, also called circulus in demonstrando. I once asked a believer why they thought that Branham was God‘s messenger. He answered and said that Branham was God's messenger because everything he said is true, and God cannot tell lies. I then asked him why he thought everything Branham said is true, yet many of the things he said are demonstrably false. He replied and said that they were true because Branham was God's messenger. He clearly assumed what he set out to prove, and finding out whether you‘re a victim of such thinking is not difficult. If you believe that Branham‘s Message is true because he said so, then you‘re definitely using this method to convince yourself on a daily basis that the Message is true. This is because the core teaching of the Message is that when Branham said that he is God‘s true messenger, he was right. Therefore if I ask you why you think the Message is true and you give me the extremely unhelpful response that ‗the prophet said it‘, you have not moved a single step towards convincing me that Branham was right. If we want to find out whether Branham was right, we cannot start by assuming that he was right. We have to examine his Message using external information. Message believers accept as true Branham‘s assertion that the Sunset cloud was Jesus because Branham said so. They say Branham‘s assertion that the strange light in the Houston Coliseum photograph was the Israelite pillar of fire is true because Branham said so. Branham, according to them, was the seventh messenger - because he said so. This situation is anything but novel. As we have seen earlier, Mormons believe Joseph Smith to be the true messenger because he said so, and Jehovah‘s Witnesses believe Charles was the true messenger because he said so. This kind of thinking may seem very dull, but it‘s one of the most powerful forces that drive belief in false doctrines. When confronted with the evidence that proves that Branham was an incredibly dishonest, a Message sister, contributing to a Message discussion, responded as follows: ―God bless you my brother, I have read the [material] you posted and yes it has a lot. But there is one thing that makes this Message the truth. And makes being a Christian sound insane. It‘s never about proof but always about believing.‖
The bold faith displayed by this sister will make a Message believer shout a good number of ‗amens‘. But there is something deeply wrong with this argument, in that it can be used to protect each and every false doctrine on earth. It also tends to suggest that something is true just because people believe in it by faith. Out of such an unfortunate scenario, a Mormon woman, when presented with proof that her beliefs are false, may successfully invoke the ‗never-about
A Final Word; and What to Expect from Believers
112
proof-but-always-about-believing‘ argument and successfully send you off, and she‘ll be left still clinging to her ridiculous beliefs. An Adventist will similarly tell you that going to church on Sunday is wrong – similarly invoking the belief argument since we don‘t have any biblical support for such an assertion. This shows that believing in something by faith does not imply that it‘s true. Mormons believe Smith was a true prophet by faith. Adventists believe Ellen was the true messenger by faith. And despite the numerous evidence to the contrary, Message adherents believe that Branham was the true messenger – of course by faith.
The other commonly used form of irresponsible argumentation used by Message apologists is the use of force, also known as argumentum ad baculum. When you present the proof, they‘ll tell you something like this: ―my dear brother you are blaspheming the Holy Spirit by speaking against Branham. Remember this sin cannot be forgiven, in this world or the next. Do not speak against the true Message of the Hour,‖ or ―may God forgive you for what you‘re doing. Do you not fear what God can do? The Message is true.‖ This corrupt form of argumentation has the effect of instilling fear in the opposing party. The use of this method may also be demonstrated as follows: ―a man tried to disprove the prophet just like you. The prophet says that he was smitten with cancer and tuberculosis .This shows that Branham was a true prophet.‖
This scheme is utilized by members of many other cults, and some Muslims use it as a primary tactic. Another cunning use of force is the act of appealing to your emotions. ―A person who had never walked before was healed by the prophet. He raised a young boy from the dead. He spoke against racism. He advocated for morality especially for women. He never got rich from his ministry. He was a righteous man who was from the Lord indeed.‖ The important thing to remember about the use of this method is that the statements made do not address the presented proof.
Believers will repeat over and over again that Branham was the true messenger of God. This is known as an argument of repetition or argumentum ad nauseam, and here we need to remember examples such as the fact that despite the number of times we tell kids that Santa Claus exists, the truth of his existence remains unaltered. Message adherents may also use an irresponsible method, Argumentum ad numerum. They say that the Message must be true given the millions of people across the world who have accepted it as true. Similarly, you may point them to the fact that more than a billion people believe that Islam is the true religion.
Some Message apologists shift the burden of proof. They might say that you can‘t prove, for instance, that a pillar of fire never appeared over little Branham during his birth. Likewise, you can‘t prove that a three eyed dragon that shoots fire off its nose doesn‘t exist somewhere between our galaxy and the next. The burden of proof always rests on the proposer of such an idea. Another unhelpful method I‘ve commonly witnessed among Message adherents may be called the universal reply, where, after their argument hits the rock, they tell you that you just need to read the Message to gain full understanding. Similarly, Mormons will tell you to read the Book
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
113
of Mormons to gain further understanding. Yet it‘s the veracity of that very book that is in question. There are many other techniques you need to watch out for, but the thing to remember is to only consider evidence and arguments that are relevant and directly linked to the topic. The danger behind these argumentation techniques is that even the most ridiculous of notions can be declared valid after going through such procedures. Such methods must be recognized and rejected as early as possible to avoid falling victim to people who will believe anything to be true despite available concrete evidence and proof to the contrary. Enquiring from biased authorities If you‘ve read this entire book, you‘ll at least have questions you‘ll need answers for. This happens whenever a Message believer comes across credible information that the Message might be false. Unfortunately, instead of doing further reading from objective sources after coming across such problems, many believers will appeal to the wrong authorities for explanations. It‘s important to avoid seeking explanations from people who can never tell you that your findings correctly refute the Message, whether or not they do. It‘s definitely something to do with conflict of interests. It‘s a scenario similar to asking the English heir to the throne, Prince Charles, whether or not England should become a republic. One of such authorities from which people seek answers from is the very Voice of God Recordings. People write to the ministry with questions about the truth of Branhamism. Even if members of that ministry came to establish that the Message is false, why on earth would they want to destroy the company they‘ve built for several decades and the livelihoods it supports by telling you what they found out? Members of the Branham family are doing well financially today because of their father‘s ministry. Even if they knew that the Message is false, why would they want to destroy the family cash till by telling you the truth? All major Message ministries are not the best places to find objective opinions about the Message. Think about it for a moment: if the Message is false, it would be in their best interest to keep people from finding out the truth. When some people come across evidence that clearly casts doubt on the truth of the Message, they feel compelled to refer the evidence to their pastor or other seniors in the church. Why would your pastor destroy his ministry, make himself look like a fool for preaching the Message for so long, and above all destroy his livelihood by telling you that your evidence is correct? It‘s in his best interest to convince you that your evidence is dubious, whether or not it is compelling. Some of the pastors of Message churches, notably many of the churches in capital cities across the world, are doing very well financially and socially because of the Message. Keep that in mind next time you feel that you should refer your serious questions about the truth of the Message to one of these pastors.
A Final Word; and What to Expect from Believers
114
If you‘re a young person, you‘re likely to refer the evidence to your parents. It‘s unlikely they‘ll admit that they introduced you to a false religion and made you follow it for all those years, and they‘ll most likely get into the rationalizations discussed above. But the most unhelpful of these enquiries is the practice of consulting Message Books to test your evidence. Such circular procedures will lead us nowhere. Be careful also of consulting yourself; remember you subconsciously assume many things to be true just because Branham said them. Years after leaving the Message, I still find myself holding onto perceptions that I acquired during my time in the Message.
Objectivity is crucial when it comes to testing any kind of evidence. All the parties discussed so far are not good sources of objective information. It‘s not entirely advisable that you shouldn‘t listen to their side of the story – that would amount to poor research – but it‘s also not advisable that you should rely on them as the ultimate authority on this topic. The best way to substantiate the claims in this book is to carry out extensive research from non-biased sources of information. After you read this book, consider carrying out your own investigations by find corroborating information from credible sources.
That‟s just about it
The purpose of this book has been to demonstrate that the major pillars of our adherence to Branhamism are false. The supernatural evidence that God supposedly gave us to vindicate his prophet has been shown to be dubious. Secondly, Branham has been caught in numerous huge errors. Thirdly, his sermons are full of absurdities that hardly represent the voice of an almighty God. And most importantly, we‘ve seen that we believe many things to be true not because they are, but because Branham said they are. To the objective reader, these four things have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, and it would make no sense to continue believing in the Message if they‘re true. Branham fooled you once when you first believed in the Message. Don‘t let him fool you again by going back to the Message even after learning the truth about him and his Message.
What you do now that you know the truth is totally up to you. Whether you share this or privately acknowledge it as the truth is also up to you. It will also mean different things to different people. But if you‘ve been in the Message for a long time and you happened to get convinced, it would not be wise to be erratic about your discovery. It is preferable to be gracious in how you deal with what you‘ve found out. Some people, after finding out that the Message is a false religion, go about talking badly about the Message and its adherents – even before their friends in the Message. Before they realize it, they‘ve lost their friends in the Message, who happened to be a majority of their friends. I am not in any way implying that it would be unwise to share this with your friends in the Message, but it would be advisable to do so with due regard to their sensitivities.
In conclusion, dear reader, it would be very sad for anyone to move from one fairy tale to another. If you ever find the courage to abandon the Message, apply the same rigorous
A LOGICAL REFUTATION OF BRANHAM’S MESSAGE
115
procedures to any other belief system you might consider joining. Blind faith is never enough, it can lead you anywhere. Our beliefs should be based on evidence. No falsehoods are worth believing, no false hopes are worth having. The ball is now in your court.
116
FURTHER READING
Legend of the Fall, by Peter M. Duyzer
eBook version: http://wmbranham.net/
A book that examines the life and teachings of William Branham in remarkable detail. Meet the real William Branham in this thoroughly researched treatise.
Message of Wm Branham Support Forum
http://forums.delphiforums.com/kennah/start
A place where former Message believers discuss their findings, thoughts and experiences. It is administered by John Kennah, a former Message believer. I do not recommend his fundamentalist views, but the forum has a lot to offer regarding William Branham and his Message.
117
Notes N.B. Paragraphs in notes relating to Message Books are numbered according to the Message search facility of Voice of God Recordings, the latest version of which can be accessed at http://branham.org/MessageSearch.htm. Any quote by Brother Branham in any chapter of this book may be confirmed by pasting it to this search facility. For readers unfamiliar with the Message, this style - THIRSTING.FOR.LIFE_ CHICAGO.IL SUNDAY_ 57-0630 – is Voice of God Recordings’ (primary distributors of Branhamite literature) method for identifying William Branham’s sermons (it shows the title, location, year, month, day) the transcripts of which can be found at http://branham.org/MessageSearch.htm by pasting the tape number, for example, paste 57-0630 for the sermon ‘Thirsting For Life.’ CHAPTER ONE
1. Branham, William. Message Book: THINGS.THAT.ARE.TO.BE_ RIALTO.CA V-4 N-6 SUNDAY_ 65-1205, paragraph 131.
2. Branham, William. Message Book: THREE.KINDS.OF.BELIEVERS_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-6 SUNDAY_ 63-1124E, paragraph 42-2.
3. Holy Bible (any version), New Testament, Matthew 12:31.
4. Branham, William. Message Book: THIRSTING.FOR.LIFE_ CHICAGO.IL SUNDAY_ 57-0630, paragraph E5.
5. Branham, William: Message Book: CONDUCT ORDER DOCTRINE, question 392.
6. Branham, William, Message Book: WHO.DO.YOU.SAY.THIS.IS?_ PHOENIX.AZ V-6 N-9 SUNDAY_ 64-1227 , paragraph 47: ―I predict before the coming of the Lord Jesus, that God will sink that place. I believe that Hollywood, and Los Angeles, and them filthy places over there, that God Almighty will sink them.‖
7. Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version), Matthew 7:22-23.
118
CHAPTER TWO
1. Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reasoning. ―noun 1.the act or process of a person who reasons. 2.the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. 3.the reasons, arguments, proofs, etc., resulting from this process.
2. Branham, William, REVELATION.OF.JESUS.CHRIST - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.1, paragraph 18-3.
CHAPTER THREE
1. http://briangan.ms11.net/personal/objections.htm - Common Objections against William Branham.
2. See the magazine Only Believe "On the Road to Sunset", June 1992, a magazine written by Rebekah Branham Smith, Mr. Branham‘s eldest daughter.
3. Science magazine. (19 April 1963) Vol. 140 No. 3564. Page 292.
4. Try http://www.spacearchive.info/vafblog.htm.
5. See his website, http://people.delphiforums.com/johnk63/home.htm
CHAPTER FOUR
1. Larkin, Clarence (1919) The Book of Revelation, Erwin W. Moyer. There are many sites from which you can download the book, and you can read it on http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/tbr/index.htm.
2. Larkin, Clarence (1919) The Book of Revelation, Erwin W. Moyer, page 20
3. The dates were given in An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, but also in the sermons on the Church Ages, such as EPHESIAN.CHURCH.AGE_ JEFF.IN ROJC 131-183 MONDAY_ 60-1205, paragraphs 44-46.
4. Larkin, Clarence (1919) The Book of Revelation, Erwin W. Moyer, page 21
5. Larkin, Clarence (1919) The Book of Revelation, Erwin W. Moyer, page 23
6. Larkin, Clarence (1919) The Book of Revelation, Erwin W. Moyer, page 24
7. Larkin, Clarence (1919) The Book of Revelation, Erwin W. Moyer, page 25
8. Larkin, Clarence (1919) The Book of Revelation, Erwin W. Moyer, page 27
119
9. Larkin, Clarence (1919) The Book of Revelation, Erwin W. Moyer, page 29
10. Peyton, H.A.(1996) William Branham: His Life, Teachings and Demonic Spirit Guide, Doctrines of Christ. Peyton deals with Martin very well on page 56.
11. Peyton, H.A.(1996) William Branham: His Life, Teachings and Demonic Spirit Guide, Doctrines of Christ, page 56.
12. To read more on Luther‘s agitation against the Jews, go through Martin Brecht‘s Martin Luther (Brecht, Martin. (1985) Martin Luther, Fortress Press, Minneapolis).
CHAPTER FIVE
1. This question is posed to Branham‘s critics on the website ‗Answering Brother Branham's Critics‘ on http://the_wordbride.tripod.com/critics2.html
2. Read page 119 of The Acts of the Prophet by Pearry Green.
3. TESTIMONY_ W.P.BEACH.FL SUNDAY_ 53-1129E, paragraph 35
4. ANGEL.OF.THE.LORD_ TOLEDO.OH WEDNESDAY_ 51-0718, paragraph 48
5. For a full list of all FBI directors, consult http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/directors.
6. George Lacy was a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, and served as its president from 1956 to 1960. http://www.asqde.org/about/presidents/lacy_g.html.
7. Lindsay talks about this during the sermon AT.THY.WORD_ MINNEAPOLIS.MN FRIDAY_ 50-0714, from paragraph 36.
8. This scan was obtained from John Kennah‘s site, http://people.delphiforums.com/JohnK63/evetns.htm#pillar1950.
CHAPTER SIX
1. Genesis 2:22, New International Version.
2. SIXTH.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN SATURDAY_ 63-0323, paragraph 130.
3. CHURCH.AND.ITS.CONDITION_ JEFF.IN CH 1-34 SUNDAY_ 56-0805, paragraph 86.
4. QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS_ JEFF.IN COD SUNDAY_ 59-0628E, paragraph 189.
5. RETURN.AND.JUBILEE_ SHREVEPORT.LA THURSDAY_ 62-1122, paragraph 65.
6. CONDEMNATION.BY.REPRESENTATION_ JEFF.IN V-2 N-13 SUNDAY_ 60-1113, paragraph 35.
7. LAODICEAN.CHURCH.AGE - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.9, paragraph 354
120
8. Branham propounds this teaching throughout his ministry, and he describes it in his book, An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages: EPHESIAN.CHURCH.AGE - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.3, from paragraph 69 onwards, and from paragraph 100 onwards.
9. Among many others, INVISIBLE.UNION.OF.THE.BRIDE_ SHP.LA V-2 N-15 THURSDAY_ 65-1125, paragraph 140-142.
10. http://forums.delphiforums.com/kennah/start. This forum is a good source of information for the doubting believer, but their preaching and proselytizing is choking.
Bibliography
MESSAGE BOOKS
1. ABSOLUTE.A_ HOUSTON.TX MONDAY_ 63-0304
2. ANGEL.OF.GOD_ PHOENIX.AZ THURSDAY_ 48-0304
3. BASIS.OF.FELLOWSHIP_ LONG.BEACH.CA TUESDAY_ 61-0214
4. BREACH.THE_ JEFF.IN SUNDAY_ 63-0317E
5. CHOOSING.OF.A.BRIDE_ LA.CA V-2 N-28 THURSDAY_ 65-0429E
6. CHRIST.IS.THE.MYSTERY_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-7 SUNDAY_ 63-0728
7. COUNTDOWN_ JEFF.IN V-11 N-3 SUNDAY_ 62-0909M
8. DEMONOLOGY.2.RELIGIOUS_ CONNERSVILLE.IN DE 41-78 TUESDAY_ 53-0609
9. EASTER.SEAL_ PHOENIX.AZ V-2 N-6 SATURDAY_ 65-0410
10. EXPERIENCES.3_ PHOENIX.AZ SUNDAY_ 47-1221
11. FAITH.IN.ACTION_ CHICAGO.IL MONDAY_ 55-1003
12. FIFTH.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN FRIDAY_ 63-0322
13. FIRST.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN MONDAY_ 63-0318
14. FOURTH.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN THURSDAY_ 63-0321
15. GABRIEL'S.INSTRUCT.TO.DANIEL_ JEFF.IN DA 1-44 SUNDAY_ 61-0730M
16. GOD.IN.SIMPLICITY_ JEFF.IN SUNDAY_ 63-0317M
17. GREAT.COMING.REVIVAL_ CHICAGO.IL SUNDAY_ 54-0718A
18. HANDWRITING.ON.THE.WALL_ JEFF.IN SUNDAY_ 58-0309M
19. INTER.VEIL_ STURGIS.MI SATURDAY_ 56-0121
20. INVASION.OF.THE.USA_ JEFF.IN V-26 N-1 SUNDAY_ 54-0509
21. LAODICEAN.CHURCH.AGE - CHURCH.AGE.BOOK CPT.9
22. LIFE.STORY_ LA.CA FOOTPRINTS.BOOK SUNDAY_ 59-0419A
23. LORD.JUST.ONCE.MORE_ HOT.SPRINGS.AR V-20 N-10 FRIDAY_ 63-0628A
24. MANIFESTATION.OF.THY.RESURRECTION_ LA.CA MONDAY_ 54-0809E
25. MARRIAGE.AND.DIVORCE_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-13 SUNDAY_ 65-0221M
26. PERSEVERANT_ CHICAGO.IL V-21 N-4 FRIDAY_ 63-0802
121
27. QA.ON.GENESIS_ JEFF.IN COD WEDNESDAY_ 53-0729
28. QUEEN.OF.THE.SOUTH_ SHREVEPORT.LA SUNDAY_ 60-1127E
29. QUESTIONS.AND.ANSWERS_ JEFF.IN COD SUNDAY_ 64-0830E
30. RAPTURE.THE_ YUMA.AZ V-5 N-14 SATURDAY_ 65-1204
31. RECOGNIZING.YOUR.DAY_ JEFF.IN V-5 N-1 SUNDAY_ 64-0726M
32. RISING.OF.THE.SUN_ JEFF.IN V-3 N-12 SUNDAY_ 65-0418M
33. SECOND.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN TUESDAY_ 63-0319
34. SERPENT'S.SEED_ JEFF.IN V-2 N-4 SUNDAY_ 58-0928E
35. SEVENTH.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN SUNDAY_ 63-0324E
36. SHALOM_ PHOENIX.AZ V-22 N-1 SUNDAY_ 64-0119
37. SHOW.US.THE.FATHER_ TUCSON.AZ THURSDAY_ 63-0606
38. SIXTH.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN SATURDAY_ 63-0323
39. SPIRITUAL.FOOD.IN.DUE.SEASON_ JEFF.IN V-8 N-7 SUNDAY_ 65-0718E
40. STANDING.IN.THE.GAP_ JEFF.IN V-6 N-7 SUNDAY_ 63-0623M
41. THIRD.SEAL.THE_ JEFF.IN WEDNESDAY_ 63-0320
42. THIRSTING.FOR.LIFE_ CHICAGO.IL SUNDAY_ 57-0630
43. TRYING.TO.DO.GOD.A.SERVICE_ SHP.LA V-7 N-2 SATURDAY_ 65-1127B
44. UNCERTAIN.SOUND_ JEFF.IN V-16 N-3 SUNDAY_ 60-1218
45. WHAT.IS.THE.ATTRACTION?_ JEFF.IN V-8 N-8 SUNDAY_ 65-0725E
46. WHO.IS.THIS_ CLARKSVILLE.IN SUNDAY_ 59-1004M
47. WHY.ARE.WE.NOT.A.DENOMINATION?_ JEFF.IN V-11 N-7 SATURDAY_ 58-0927
48. WORKS.IS.FAITH.EXPRESSED_ SHREVEPORT.LA V-7 N-1 FRIDAY_ 65-1126
OTHER BOOKS
49. Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses.
50. Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus XVI.
51. Branham, W. M. (1965) An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, Voice of God Recordings.
52. Green, P. Acts of the Prophet, Tucson Tabernacle.
53. Jorgensen, O (2002) Supernatural: The life of William Branham, Book 5: The Teacher and his Rejection, Tucson Tabernacle.
54. Larkin, C. (1919), ―The Book of Revelation”, Erwin W. Moyer.
55. Lindsay, G. William Branham: A Man Sent From God, WBEA.
56. Long, J (2005) Biblical Nonsense: A review of the Bible for doubting Christians, iUniverse, Inc.
122
57. Peyton, H.A. (1996) William Branham: His Life, Teachings and Demonic Spirit Guide, Doctrines of Christ.
58. Pohl, A.H. Why I left the Tongues Movement.
59. Stadsklev, J., William Branham: A Prophet Visits South Africa.
60. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Robert Appleton Company, New York, NY.
OTHER RESOURCES
61. Branham, R.S. (1992) Only Believe: On the Road to Sunset, Voice of God Recordings. magazine
62. Anonymous. (1997) Common Objections against William Branham, Online http://briangan.ms11.net/personal/objections.htm
63. Holy Bible (New International Version) Genesis 1 & 2.
64. Holy Bible (Revised Standard Version) Mathew 7.
65. Jacobsen, K. (2009) A Refutation of William Marion Branham. online http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general1098.html
66. Kennah. J. William Branham and His Message. online http://people.delphiforums.com/johnk63/home.htm
67. Lacy, G.J. (1950) Report and Opinion Re: Questioned Negative. professional examination report
68. LIFE, May 17, 1963. magazine
69. McDonald, J.E. (1963) Status of Investigation of the Northern Arizona Stratospheric Cloud of February 28, 1963, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson. academic paper
70. McDonald, J.E. (1963) Stratospheric Cloud over Northern Arizona, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson. academic paper
71. O Timothy, February 21, 1990. magazine
72. SCIENCE, April 19, 1963. magazine
73. US Government (2010) Vandenberg AFB Launch History. Online http://www.spacearchive.info/vafblog.htm