Jump to content

Question 34 (ABM) - The Cloud over Flagstaff: Difference between revisions

Question 34 (ABM) - The Cloud over Flagstaff (view source)

Revision as of 02:13, 10 February 2019

16,719 bytes added ,  5 years ago
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 141: Line 141:


BTS
BTS
=Response from ABM=
BTS,
Thank you for your continued dialogue.
I approach this topic knowing Bro. Branham had a tendency to exaggerate, and I try to parse his statements carefully. He sometimes had a way of wording things which could be interpreted multiple ways. I personally believe he did that on purpose at times to allow people to infer something he did not actually directly say. That is one of the manners in which he exaggerated, without explicitly saying something untrue. My opinion is that, overall, that is what has happened with the cloud story. He never plainly says he was there the day the picture was taken, and was under the same cloud which was photographed. He dances around it and implies it heavily, but never directly says it. I know you likely disagree with my last sentence, but read his statements like a lawyer would and you can see he left himself an out. (I can certainly see why you would argue he did say he was there that day. So even if I accept that, I can just put it in the category as one more exaggeration, just like exaggerations we saw in the ministry of Elijah.)
There is one important quote about the cloud I notice that you are missing, which I believe is the clarifying statement to the entire issue. In the first message where he ever talked about the cloud photograph, he says the following:
:''When I come, one thing, was by a vision, that I was standing above Tucson up here when a blast went off. Brother Fred was there when it went off. And they took that picture, you know, in the sky. And I didn’t think much about it, never noticed it. So it begin to impress me somehow the other day. And Brother Norman, Norma’s father here, told me, said, “Did you notice this?” And just as I looked, right there was them angels just as plain as they could be, setting right there in that picture. You see? I looked to see when it was [AMB: in the magazine, Feb 28] , and it was time, same '''’bout day or two before or, day or two after''' I was up there. [AMB: indicating he was up there maybe around March 1\2, but in reality March 7.] I looked where it was at: northeast of Flagstaff, or Prescott, which is below Flagstaff. Well, that’s just where we was at (See?), just exactly. - Come, Follow Me (63-0601)
He says pretty clearly he was not there the day the photograph was taken. So seeing he said that from the very beginning, it certainly can help interpret the rest of what he said properly. He said he was not there... Then he said things that indicate he was there. Which is the true statement? Obviously facts bear out his original statement that he was not there is the truth.
His belief that the picture was important was based on him claiming to see a vision of angels within the picture itself when it was shown to him. Not because he personally witnessed the cloud on Feb 28.
===The cloud appeared over Flagstaff but William Branham was hunting 200 miles from there at Rattlesnake Mesa. Why does he say that he was at Flagstaff when he wasn’t?===
Brother Branham had been known to exaggerate things. But it is important to note the cloud was visible for hundreds of mile around. He was certainly hunting in an area where the cloud would have been visible. (But he was hunting there on a different day) That fact can be verified by the photos of the cloud taken from nearby Tuscon.
===Why did William Branham state that the cloud was directly above him when it appeared 8 days earlier 200 miles away?===
The cloud Bro. Branham was underneath was on March 8. Clearly, he believed the cloud, or an identical cloud, appeared more than once, given the fact he acknowledged he was not there the day of the photograph.
Why does William Branham state that there were no airplanes in his area when he appears to be referring to the magazine article which is talking about the area around Flagstaff, some 200 miles away?
I am not sure I understand this question. If your emphasis on his statement about the airplanes, or his location? If it is the airplanes, I cannot speak to that. But if it is in regards to his location, I will restate that the cloud was clearly visible from Tuscon. The magazines mention Tuscon. He was near Tuscon.
===Why does he state that the magazine refers to the same place that he was hunting when it clearly does not?===
The magazine does refer to Tuscon. There are pictures published in them which are taken from Tuscon. It does not mention his hunting group specifically, but certainly does mention the region in which his hunting ground was located.
===Why does he state that the magazine refers to the same place that he was hunting when it clearly does not?===
The magazine indicates the cloud was visible across the entire state of Arizona. He was hunting in Arizona (on March 7-9). So he was certainly in the location where the cloud had been visible.
===Why does he say he was hunting at the same time and at the same place that the cloud appeared when the facts clearly show that he was not?===
A demonstrated in my first quote, he clearly says he was not at the same place and at the same time the photograph was taken. A reasonable explanation is that he thought the cloud appeared twice. It was photographed when it appeared, which he did not witness. And it appeared a second time when the angels left, which he did witness, but was not photographed.
:''And, now, I didn’t know at the time, that they were taking pictures of that, scientists was, as the Angels lowered themselves from Heaven, to bring the Message. STANDING.IN.THE.GAP_  JEFF.IN  V-6 N-7  SUNDAY_  63-0623M
From this statement it is clear he viewed the photograph as being taken of the angels lowering themselves, or descending to earth. He believed the photo was of their arrival, not their departure. The photos were taken eight day before he witnessed the cloud, which fits this interpretation. He repeats a similar statement in another sermon, supporting the fact that he believed the cloud was photographed just days before his visitation.
:''That day they took pictures all across southern United States and Mexico. There it hangs now in the Life Magazine, still a mystery to them. But He declares it in the heavens before He does it on earth. He always does that. He shows His signs in the heavens first. SHALOM_ SIERRA.VISTA.AZ 64-0112
What he claims to have seen was their departure
Later, the Angels appeared [ABM: to Bro. Branham] as was prophesied. And at the same time, a great cluster of Light left where I was standing, and moved thirty miles high in the air, and around the circle, like the wings of the Angels, and drawed into the skies a shape of a pyramid in the same constellation of Angels that appeared [ABM: originally on Feb 28]. IT.IS.THE.RISING.OF.THE.SUN JEFF.IN 65-0418M
It is not hard to interpret what he is saying as the angels recreating the same cloud that had originally appeared on Feb 28 as they departed on March 9. And this is the cloud he is claiming to have witnessed, on March 8. The statements are clearly open to that interpretation, in my opinion.
===Either he is being untruthful about where he was hunting or he is being untruthful about the cloud being over him.  Is it possible for such wild exaggeration to be an "honest" mistake?===
Bro. Branham was clearly exaggerating the experience in my opinion. In my assessment, he only implied he was under the cloud on the day it was photographed without actually saying it. A careful parsing of what he says reveals what he explicitly stated what he experienced was on a different day than the photograph was taken, and he believed it was an identical cloud just like the one in the photograph. He is not perfectly clear (on purpose in my assessment) about this, but the clues are there.
In my opinion, this is the most unfortunate of all of Bro. Branham's exaggerations.
===Why does he now involve a supernatural presence that told him to look up and see the cloud that wasn't there? Is he trying to make himself look like something more than he is? ===
Different clouds, different days. He is not trying to make himself look like something, he is trying to "enhance" the "vindication" behind his sermon on the seals. The motivation is to make God look good, which is a good motive. Unfortunately, God cannot be made to look good by anything short of the perfect truth.
Some message believers point to the cloud and say that William Branham explained the cloud as being a sign that appeared in the heavens before the experience on the hunting trip, i.e. “God declares things in the heavens before He does it on earth. He always does that. He shows His signs in the heavens first.”
I subscribe to this view, in case you have not already noticed.
However, doesn't this statement appear to be talking about the fact that these events took place before the meetings that were held where William Branham spoke his series on the Seven Seals?
I am not sure I understand this question. Yes, I do think the cloud appeared and he had his experiences before he preached the sermons on the seven seals. But I am not sure that is the question you are asking. Please clarify if I am misunderstanding.
Even if this was the case relating to the cloud, how does this justify William Branham stating that they took the pictures on "that day", i.e. the day he heard the blast?
I will respond inline in his quote.
:''But did you notice before the Seven Seals was revealed, before the great mysterious Light showed forth in the heavens up here at above Tucson, Flagstaff, where we were? [ABM: They were in Tuscon, and it happened before he preached his sermon on the seals. True.] Brother Fred, two of the man that was... the two men was with me that morning...
:''That day [ABM: This is not necessarily chronological. We can infer it is chronological, and that is the logical thing to do, but from a purely legal reading of the words, it does not have to mean "that same day".  It could equally mean "that other day". "That day" could refer to a different time period, and in light of his statement that he was not there the day of photo, it must be in reference to another day. But he is obviously trying to imply it is the same day without directly saying so... exaggeration..] they took pictures all across southern United States and Mexico. There it hangs now in the Life Magazine, still a mystery to them. But He declares it in the heavens before He does it on earth. He always does that. He shows His signs in the heavens first. [ABM: Here is a clear indication that the cloud occurred before the angels actual appeared to him, several days later](64-0112)
*** this is a different quote from another year. It important to not read these as though they are one line of thought.
:''Later, [ABM: after the vision of the King's sword] the Angels appeared as was prophesied. And at the same time, [ABM: the same time they appeared to him, which was days after the photograph] a great cluster of Light left where I was standing, and moved thirty miles high in the air, [ABM: he speculates on the height based on the magazine article of the original cloud] and around the circle, like the wings of the Angels, and drawed into the skies a shape of a pyramid in the same constellation of Angels that appeared. [ABM: those departing angels made the same shape which had originally appeared and been photographed days earlier]
:''Science took the picture, [ABM: of when the angels appeared, not departed] all the way from Mexico, as it moved from northern Arizona, where the Holy Spirit said I would be standing, "forty miles northeast of Tucson." [ABM, he was between Mexico and northern Arizona] And it went into the air, and Life magazine packed the pictures [ABM: he artfully leaves it open to us to interpret the cloud he witnessed was the same as the one in the magazine, without explicitly saying so], "A mystic something way in the spheres, where there could be no moisture, where there could be no evaporations of anything; thirty miles high, and twenty-seven miles across," and coming right up from where those Angels were.
:''Now, they asked, to know. Science, the one of them in Tucson, wanted to know any significance, but I didn't tell them. You all knew it, told beforehand. But it wasn't for them; it was for you. (65-0418M)
Knowing that the cloud formed 8 days before the hunting trip, doesn't this affect William Branham's credibility?
Bro. Branham clearly intended to imply he was present the day of the photograph, but he left enough wiggle room in his statements for him to have an out and say he was misunderstood should someone call him on it. It is there if you will look for it. It affects his credibility no more than his other exaggerations. I do not recommend repeating his teachings verbatim without the insight of the Word of God to validate them. I likewise do not recommend presenting all of his stories as true stories unless they are certainly verified. But we have never done that, only the nuts and idolaters have.
===If your pastor told you things that were this far off base, would you believe him?===
If this was all there was to it, yes it would be hard to be sure. But there is so much more to Bro. Branham than his exaggerations, which makes it difficult to dismiss the parts I am sure of.
===Why should we not reject everything that William Branham has to say about the cloud?===
I personally have no problem with someone doing that. I see no negative consequences to doing so. It has no doctrinal or spiritual value of itself. I think you attach more importance to this cloud than I do, or than most of the Branham movement does. I call his exaggerations on this topic the most unfortunate of all because it puts a negative cloud over his more important teachings. It was unnecessary, because we accepted the teaching without the cloud.
In regards to the origin of the cloud, I would add this: I believe that everything truly in the end is bound by the laws of nature, which God created. Science is the understanding of the laws of nature which God made. As on author wrote, true science is merely the answer to how God did it. There is no doubt a scientific explanation to the clouds of glory which the Lord left and will return in. I have no problem with discovering the origin of the cloud was via some explainable means. Cloud by day and fire by night - God put some law in nature to produce that cloud and that fire.
I really only see two possible solutions to this issue. One, he never actually saw a cloud at all while he was hunting and he made it up. Two, he did see a cloud when he was hunting, but it could not have been the same one in the photo. With option one, it goes in the category of exaggerations. With option two, it goes into the category of exaggerations. I would draw the same conclusion.
My personal conclusion on this topic, which may not be widely shared, is that Bro. Branham exaggerated this story and tried to imply he was present when the photograph was taken. I do believe the vision of the Kings Sword. I do believe he met the seven angels and was instructed to go back to Jeffersonville to bring the message of the seals. I do believe there was a great blast. I do believe a strange cloud appeared in the sky a few days before that happened. I do believe he had a vision of a constellation of angels appearing prior to all of that. I think there is reasonable support to prove all of those things. I cannot throw out the parts I am sure are true, because I see one part that is embellished. Outside of what I am sure is true, I would not present the rest as solidly known facts, but I see no negative consequence doctrinally or otherwise to doing that. Likewise, I see no negative consequence in in accepting what Bro. Branham said, so long as it is not turned into some crazy doctrine like "Perusia". I have no problem repeating Bro. Branham's account and let people decide for themselves.
A basic element in your conclusions in all this is accurate. Bro. Branham exaggerated, he made some things up. Those exaggerations not related to doctrine or biblical interpretation can be "excused" as a personal failing of a man. There is sound biblical precedence for that. The result though is that we have to be careful, and make sure we validate things by the bible and not repeat everything as fact unless we know it is true. This goes back to the basic problem with some people in the movement, they are unable to separate fact from fiction, on this level, or on the doctrinal level. And that is the kind of a church you came out of. We are not all that way, and we have been honest about these things since the beginning.
Kind regards,
ABM




Retrieved from "http:///index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/23689"