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

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.)

'''BTS:''' The issues you raise here are worth considering in more detail.  

The use of deception in any form under the new covenant must be rejected as contrary to scripture.

'''ABM:''' I agree that exaggerations are a form a dishonesty, and that deception and exaggeration are inappropriate traits for a minister of God to have. I think we essentially agree on that point. Where our difference lies is in determining if that character flaw in Bro. Branham was severe enough to warrant us to dismiss his entire ministry and reject (in this instance) his sermons on the seven seals. I come back to the same scriptural rationale I have presented previously. Prophets of the old testament lied, exaggerated, and changed their stories after giving the them the first time. Specifically all three biblical prophets of the Elijah anointing did just those very things. So what I have to ask myself is this: is Bro. Branham's mistakes in these areas any greater than the mistakes of those other men of the Elijah anointing? I ultimately conclude no, because John the Baptist actually got close to denying Christ in his change of story. None of Bro. Branham's exaggerations seem to have any doctrinal impact. For me, the majority of Bro. Branham's exaggerations are minor in nature, not impactful or related to doctrine or church teachings, and easily overlooked and excused (not as though they were ok, but just accepted as the flaw of a man). This particular exaggeration concerning the cloud, as I have said is the most unfortunate. However, not being related directly to scriptural interpretation, it again does not provide us with scriptural grounds to reject his entire ministry. It provides us only with grounds to question this particular event.You state 1 Cor 4:2, which is an excellent goal and standard. However, Paul also states in Rom 11:29 "the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance" (or irrevocable in other translations), meaning that the gift and calling can still be authentic despite the personal failings of the gift bearer or called individual. A prophet is still a prophet, despite his personal failings.

'''ABM:''' 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:

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.

'''BTS:''' I am aware that he made the statement that it was “’bout day or two before or, day or two after I was up there.”  The problem is that this statement is also not true.  He is trying to make light of the fact that the cloud was ONE WEEK before he went hunting.  It was not after, it was before.  Honestly, I think someone pointed out the fact that he was hunting after and he simply brushed off the comment with a statement inferring that it was close to when he was hunting. '''BUT IT WASN’T!'''

'''ABM:''' I think that statement is a very important one. Because he states quite plainly he was not there the day of the cloud was photographed. He is conveying that he was there in the same time frame, but not the same day. That is critical information. If we are going to look at the varying accounts on the cloud, I think it is important that we look at the account that most closely resembles the known facts. I think the version that most closely resembles the facts is the most likely to be true.

'''ABM:''' 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.

'''BTS:''' I have been to the Sunset Peak area.  Back when we were in the message, we were honestly trying to do what we could to prove the message to be true.  It is a mountainous area.  It would have been almost impossible to see something low in the northwest.  But that is beside the point.  William Branham specifically stated:

He never said that he would be standing North of Tucson, east of Flagstaff.  He doesn’t mention Flagstaff on tape at any time between January 28, 1962 and March 17, 1963.  He does state on December 23, 1962, that the angels were around Tucson looking east.  He does not mention Flagstaff.  So this is again a case where he is lying to make it look like he was prophesying something when, in fact, there was no prophecy.

'''ABM:''' I have also been to Arizona, and the area he called sunset mountain. He said he would be out west, in Arizona. He did not say where in Arizona. The cloud was in Arizona.He was in Arizona. Just zoom out a little bit and his statements have accuracy.

'''ABM:''' 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.

'''BTS:''' William Branham’s reference to “a day or two before or, day or two after” is simply equivocation.  You have already confirmed that William Branham often used doublespeak.  This is simply another example.  He brushed off the fact that he wasn’t there with a statement that was also untrue.  And message followers continue to fall for his deceptive practices.

==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?==

'''ABM:''' 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.

'''BTS:''' Again, he was 50 miles from Tucson as the crow flies but he was in the mountains.  He never saw the cloud when he was in Tucson (he certainly never mentions it).  And he could not have seen the cloud when he was at Rattlesnake Mesa (he was a week after the short time the cloud was visible).  He was lying.

'''ABM:''' This is only problematic if we view it as a single cloud. But we cannot reconcile his statement that he was not there on Feb 28, and have a single cloud event. Either there were two times the cloud appeared, and he is talking about the second, or he made it up. I see sufficient evidence to conclude he thought it appeared twice.

'''ABM:''' 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.

'''BTS:''' The Life Magazine article does not refer to the cloud being seen from Tucson.  Other science magazine do, but there is no indication that William Branham knew of these at the time.

Again, it is possible that William Branham could have seen the cloud from Tucson on February 28, 1963.  But that is not his testimony.  He said that he saw the cloud that was in Life Magazine and the date that he saw it was March 7, 1963, a week after the cloud appeared.

'''ABM:''' I think you are mistaken. Life Magazine plainly refers to Tuscon on page 112. It clearly states that is where Dr. James McDonald was located at, and was analyzing the cloud from. It also states the cloud was visible from "widely scattered locations in the state" of Arizona. I to am unsure if he had any of the other news or magazine articles available to him at the time. But certainly the subsequent articles in Science magazine confirm the cloud of Feb 28 was plainly visible from Tuscon. As far as him seeing it, we just parse his words differently. I see he could just be stating he was present where the Feb 28 cloud had been visible, as opposed to seeing it himself. And then not clearly explaining what he saw personally was on another day.

'''BTS:''' I quoted Life Magazine exactly.  It does refer to The  Institute of Atmospheric Physics as being in Tucson.  It does not state anything else in reference to Tucson.

'''ABM:''' 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.

'''BTS:''' William Branham was in a mountainous area with a chain of high mountains running from north to south immediately to his west.  So his view of the cloud (if he had been there on February 28) would have been obscured by the mountains.  Please look at Google maps (https://goo.gl/maps/LTefEfPjw2n) and you will see what I am referring to.  It is possible he could have seen it if he was standing on top of a mountain peak but he was hunting and javelina are not known to be found on the top of a mountain.

'''ABM:''' It is possible the cloud was not visible at his hunting ground, but that is not certain. Given the height of the cloud, it may indeed have been visible there. It would certainly have been several miles higher in the air than the top of the peak and the angle may have been adequate. I am not a mathematician though to provide the formula to calculate that. Ultimately this only matters if there was only a single cloud appearance on Feb 28. We know he did not personally see the Feb 28 cloud.

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.

'''BTS:''' William Branham stated:

In my opinion, this is the most unfortunate of all of Bro. Branham's exaggerations.

'''BTS:''' With respect, you are subject to confirmation bias and therefore, cannot accept what is obvious to an impartial, independent observer.  William Branham was not there and was simply telling a lie.  Neither of his companions saw the cloud.

'''ABM:''' I can appreciate your opinion. As I stated before, whether I accept he exaggerated it all, or just a portion, it does not really change the fact that he exaggerated here. This takes me back to the question, in the worst case scenario, where it all was totally made up, is that severe enough for me to reject him ministry? Then I see Elisha and Elijah both completely made up a story and presented it as the truth to people. I do not excuse the shortcomings or personal failings, but is it enough for me to reject what he said I know to be true? It still does not meet that level for me. The real danger here is doing what some message ministers do: present these things as solid facts and build up a crazy doctrine on it. That is the real danger, and so long as that is avoided, I find it excusable.

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.

'''BTS:''' So you are saying that an entirely different cloud appeared to William Branham on March 7, 1963?  And that cloud looked exactly like the cloud that was photographed in Life magazine?  But no one in the state saw this strange reappearance of the cloud a week later?

ABM: Either that or he made it up. There is no other possible answer. There is no scriptural precedence for time travel by men.

'''BTS:''' That is almost as good as the other explanation that I have heard, which is that William Branham was caught up into another dimension and saw the cloud that appeared a week earlier.  Again, this is simply cognitive dissonance at work. Message believers think it is impossible that William Branham lied and, therefore, there must be some bizarre explanation to avoid the obvious conclusion.

In my view, this is where one must look to Occam’s Razor which essentially states that simpler solutions are more likely to be correct than complex ones. When presented with competing explanations, one should normally select the solution with the fewest assumptions.  In this case, you are making some very wild assumptions.  However, the most logical and straightforward explanation is that William Branham was being untruthful.

'''ABM:''' I think it is clear, no matter how you cut it, Bro. Branham was exaggerating when he told this story. The degree to which it was exaggerated is where I think we disagree. You think it was totally made up. I see an element of truth there.

:''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)

'''BTS:''' I have a hard time believing that you are attempting to twist his words from their apparent meaning to mean something that makes no sense.  Your analysis of his words makes no logical sense.

'''ABM:''' His plain meaning of them makes no logical sense. Our options are to conclude it was all made up, or try to make sense of it. We just take a different path.

'''ABM:''' 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.

'''BTS:''' William Branham has so many exaggerations that his credibility is in tatters.  You think he was an expert at doublespeak.  I think it is clear that he was lying.  

'''ABM:''' We just disagree concerning the extent of the severity of his exaggerations. His exaggerations in this story are his most unfortunate. This is the worst there is. I don't honestly think it is nearly as bad as you do. And this being the worst, the rest are generally minor.

'''ABM:''' 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.

'''BTS:''' I do not believe there is more to William Branham than his exaggerations.  There were very few people healed, according to the historical records.  Certainly, there were no more people healed than in other healing evangelists’ meetings.  William Branham was a man who proclaimed that he was a mighty prophet.  But it is clear that he wasn’t who he said he was.

'''ABM:''' We clearly draw different conclusions.  

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.

'''BTS:''' How do you explain the fact that his two companions never saw the cloud?

'''ABM:''' Paul on the Damascus road. Paul saw the light and heard a voice, the others around him did not experience the same thing. So there is biblical precedence.

'''ABM:''' 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.

'''BTS:''' Again, I will refer to the quote of Friedrich Nietzsche – “''I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.''”  When I came to understand the extent of William Branham’s deception, I was upset.  But I wasn’t upset that he lied, I was upset that I had to reject everything he has to say.  William Branham is simply not credible.  A court of law would throw out his ENTIRE testimony because he is clearly an unreliable witness.

'''ABM:''' I have to use the standards of the bible to draw my conclusions. False doctrines or false prophesies are the grounds to reject a minister or prophet as a fraud. Anything less could indeed mean he needs to step down from the ministry, but it does not negate his calling, ministry, or the good he did. In my view, Bro. Branham's exaggerations do not rise to the level necessary to reject him as a false prophet. They are not without impact though. Things like this were openly discussed from the platforms of some message churches and addressed before you ever even discovered these problems. Parts of the movement have been completely open and honest about these things and dealt with them head on. You however were part of a church with buried all the truth. Then when you happened upon it, it was quite devastating. Especially coupled with clear failure of the ministry to live up to the gospel they preached. They proved themselves hypocrites. What basis did you have to continue to believe? You saw problems everywhere and no solutions and no one had answers, your only course was to completely repudiation everything. I understand. It makes me sad to even think of that for you. I suppose I, and others like me, have been inoculated to this problem of the exaggerations because we have never kept it hid. I am sure you can appreciate how that would give me a different perspective.

'''ABM:''' 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.

'''BTS:''' WHY DID WILLIAM BRANHAM NOT MAKE A SINGLE REFERENCE TO THE CLOUD PRIOR TO JUNE 1962?The most logical explanation is that he never saw it and so didn't mention it.  You indicated that he was significantly influenced by other and it appears that he simply took their suggestion and ran with it.

What we understand from scripture is that God is not in deception.  William Branham repeatedly lied over the pulpit by your own admission.  Paul set a standard for those in leadership in the church.  William Branham failed that standard on a consistent basis.  He was not who he claimed he was.  He was not who you claimed he was.

I have used the word exaggerate, as opposed to lie. But I understand your terminology. I agree that Bro. Branham had failures in that area that Paul would have been very disappointed in. But Paul himself is clear that does not negate a true calling. Satan cannot heal.