Question 34 (ABM) - The Cloud over Flagstaff

Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.

The following are a series of questions and answers between one of our editors (referred to as BTS) and an anonymous Branham minister (referred to as ABM). This series of Q&A relates to William Branham's credibility. The full text of this question and its answer is below.

Click on the links to go to a specific question or a different subject area. You are currently on the topic below that is in bold:

Complete list of questions

Q&A relating to William Branham's Prophetic Ministry

Q&A relating to William Branham's Doctrine

Q&A on the current status of the "message"

Question 7 - William Branham's visit to Rome

Question 8 - The 1933 Ohio River Baptismal experience

Question 10 - Congressman Upshaw

Question 11 - A Faked Discernment?

Question 12 - A Biblical Perspective on William Branham's Lies

Question 16 - The Vision of the Plum and Apple Trees

Question 17 - The Mystery of the Empty Cornerstone

Question 21 - How many people were actually healed in Branham's ministry?

Question 28 - Did William Branham visit the graves of Muhammad, Buddha, and Confucius?

Question 29 - Did William Branham travel around the world seven times?

Question 30 - The man from Windsor

Question 33 - The Prophecy of the Seven Angels

Question 34 - The Cloud over Flagstaff

Question 34 - The Cloud over Flagstaff

Dear ABM,

I wish to continue with the issue of William Branham’s credibility.

As you know, at around sunset on February 28, 1963, a cloud appeared in the vicinity of Flagstaff, AZ and remained sunlit for 28 minutes after sunset. It was highlighted in the May 1963 edition of Life Magazine. In addition to Life Magazine, various articles written appeared in Science Magazine (April 19, 1963), an independent report issued May 31, 1963, and in Weatherwise Magazine (June 1963).

The cloud was very unusual and puzzled scientists at the time, who could not find a conclusive explanation for the cloud. The height of the cloud was initially estimated by James E. McDonald from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona, Tucson, as being approximately 35 kilometers but was later revised by him to be at approximately 43 kilometers (141,000 feet). It is interesting to note that the Thor rocket was intentionally destroyed at an elevation of approximately 44 kilometers.

Believers of William Branham's message view the cloud as part of the fulfillment of a vision that William Branham had in December 1962 that Seven Angels would meet him outside of Tuscon, Arizona. They see it as a supernatural sign that preceded William Branham's opening of the Seven Seals. I assume you are of a similar view.

Personally, I view the cloud as simply being the aftermath of the intentional destruction of the Thor rocket over Vandenburg air force base on February 28, 1963.

I see William Branham's stories about the cloud being the aftermath of the angelic visitation as untruthful, as these stories are in direct contravention with the facts. It is clear that William Branham's own testimony clearly shows at he made up the stories about being at the cloud's genesis and that these stories only began after he saw the article in Life Magazine.

Many people focus on the scientific issues surrounding the cloud. These issues pale in comparison to the real issue: Are William Branham's accounts of his interaction with cloud credible? And if they are not, then where does that leave a person with respect to William Branham's overall credibility?

The facts about William Branham’s itinerary during the first 6 months of 1963 are as follows (from Only Believe Magazine, "Road to Sunset" by Rebekah Branham Smith):

1. William Branham spent the month of February 1963 and the beginning of March in Tucson;
2. Javelina hunting season in Arizona was from March 01 through March 10, 1963;
3. On March 3, 1963, he and Billy Paul drove to Houston, Texas for a meeting;
4. He drove back to Tucson after the meeting on March 4.
5. He left for hunting on March 6 and arrived at Rattlesnake Mesa (this is almost a 150-mile journey by car but, as the crow flies, it’s just over 50 miles northeast of Tucson). He was accompanied by Gene Norman and Fred Sothmann;
6. William Branham shot a javelina on March 7;
7. On March 8, 1963, William Branham supposedly had a supernatural visitation by 7 angels;
8. On March 9, 1963, the three men return to Tucson;
9. William Branham speaks a series on the Seven Seals of Revelation in Jeffersonville, IN from March 17-24, 1963;
10. Some two months later, the May 17, 1963 issue of Life Magazine contains a story about a “mystery” cloud; and
11. Three months after the cloud appeared, William Branham first mentions it in a sermon entitled, “Come, Follow Me” on June 1, 1963, in Tucson.

I am going to list a number of questions all of which relate to the cloud and William Branham’s credibility in relation to his claims about the cloud.

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 I come, one thing, was by a vision, that I was standing above Tucson up here when a--a--a blast went off. Well, Brother Fred was there when it went off. And they took that picture now, you know, in the sky. And I didn't think much about it, never noticed it. So it begin to impress me somehow, 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. See? I looked to see when it was, and it was time, same, about day or two before, or day or two after I was up there. 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.

Why did William Branham state that the cloud was directly above him when it appeared 8 days earlier 200 miles away? If your child bent the truth this badly, what would you call it?

And the blast did just exactly the way It said it. Is that right, Brother Fred? And I--I--I must have jumped way off of the ground. And just above me was the Angels of the Lord that sent Message back, for me to come here to break these Seals...

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...

How many saw, "A mysterious cloud in the sky"? You see the hands. And now the Life magazine picked it up. And I have the--the article here this morning, in the Life magazine, of to show. Now here It is, the same time I was there. See the pyramid of the Cloud? I was standing just below this.

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? It is also interesting to note that Gene Norman stated that after the “blast” occurred he looked up and saw “two long streaks like, ah, like a plane leaving a trail.” Local newspaper reports from the Springerville area (just minutes from Rattlesnake Mesa at supersonic speeds) at the time also referred to residents reporting sonic booms. As a result, it is realistic to draw a conclusion that the “blast” was actually a sonic boom.

But there was no plane in the district. The book says so here. They've checked it.

Why does he state that the magazine refers to the same place that he was hunting when it clearly does not?

And then while I was praying on this subject, of wondering what would happen to me, and you know where I was at? North of Tucson, east of Flagstaff; just exactly, positionally, where I told you, months before it happened, I'd be standing. And exactly according to this paper here, and of papers and this magazine, and our own testimony, exactly where it taken place. God is perfect and cannot lie, and it will come to pass.

Have you read the articles that he is referring to? Do you know where he was hunting (see Rattlesnake Mesa? 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?

And now the Life magazine picked it up. And I have the--the article here this morning, in the Life magazine, of to show. Now here It is, the same time I was there. See the pyramid of the Cloud? I was standing just below this.

Why does he again state that he was under the cloud, when he wasn't anywhere close to it?

And science is baffled. Standing right under where it was happening there... Now science took the picture of It, you seen It, went on Associated Press. They didn't know what It was. There is a Cloud hanging, twenty-six miles high. That's fifteen miles, or twenty, above even where vapor is at. They don't know what it's all going about, and they are trying to investigate It. And there, right under It, I was standing.

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?

Stand north of Tucson, witnesses standing here with it, when a blast come, that shook the mountains off the ground, almost. And at the same time, a circle of Light hanging yonder in the air, when the science took the pictures now.

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? Why does he say that his companions were talking about the cloud when they admit that they never saw it?

It's a mysterious cloud. The cloud is twenty-six miles high and thirty miles across. And that's what we were speaking of here. That's where the Angel of the Lord came down and shook the place...

It went so loud, right on me, like that. Then, all at once, Something said, "Look up." There It was...

I met Brother Fred and Brother Norman, about a hour later, when I found them. They were excited and talking about it. There it is. And science says that it's impossible for--for any kind of a--a mist or anything get that high, fog, vapor.

Like the March 17th, the March issue of the Life magazine, you seen that circle of Light in the skies, thirty miles high, twenty-seven miles across. Why, moisture is only about nine miles high, and they can't even make up what it was. And right standing beneath that, a man that is sitting right present now, was right standing there by me, when seven Angels come down from God, visibly standing right there...

Why is he now elaborating on his prior exaggeration, something that never happened? How can he claim to be standing under a cloud that appeared 8 days earlier and 200 miles away?

And I looked up, there was that white Circle above me there, circling around. Here come seven Angels, come moving down out of the air, picked me up...

I didn't know it; but cameras from all over the country was taking the picture of That, as the white Cloud settled down, went on the Associated Press. I think your Chicago paper packed it, all around. Life magazine packed it. How many has seen it in there, that Mr.... That, see, that was it right there, just exactly the way it said it, standing right under It when It come down and formed. They said, "It was way beyond, and it's... hunted the country, there was no airplanes or nothing in there. And It was too high, twenty-six miles high, where there is no vapor or nothing. You couldn't, they couldn't make vapor, anyhow. And thirty miles across It."

Some people claim that William Branham told someone that the angels had been waiting at Rattlesnake Mesa for a week before he got there. Doesn't that sound like hearsay evidence?

These people then state that the cloud was simply an after effect of the angels arriving. But how could that be when William Branham clearly states that the cloud was created by the angels leaving?

Now, some sister here, Billy just showed me, was nice enough to go get this Life magazine, this picture, and blow it up, of that of the seven Angels, and have it taken and sent to me. That is the picture. And now if you'll notice here, as it was leaving, ascending back, when the Angels had brought Their Message.

And when they ascended up on High, like that, went thirty miles high in the air; and, on the same day, they took the picture of It, science did, and went around the world.

Later, the Angels appeared 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.

Science took the picture, 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." :And it went into the air, and Life magazine packed the pictures, "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...

And now, as this went up, we have the picture outside on the plaque...

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. He declares it in the heavens before He does it on earth. He always does that. He shows His signs in the heavens first. 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?

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?

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? Brother Fred, two of the man that was... the two men was with me that morning...

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.

Later, the Angels appeared 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.

Science took the picture, 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." And it went into the air, and Life magazine packed the pictures, "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.

Knowing that the cloud formed 8 days before the hunting trip, doesn't this affect William Branham's credibility? If your pastor told you things that were this far off base, would you believe him?

And I started up the mountain, running as hard as I could on the other side. All of a sudden, I thought somebody shot me. I never heard such a blast; it shook the whole country. And, when it did, standing before me was seven Angels in a cluster.

I met Brother Fred and them, a little after. Said, "What was it?"

I said, "That was it."

"What are you going to do?

"Return home. For, THUS SAITH THE LORD, the seven mysteries that's been hid in the Bible all these years, these denominations and everything, God is going to open those seven mysteries to us in the Seven Seals."

There was that circle coming up from the earth, like a mist forming. When It did, It went plumb up into the mountain, begin to circle on westward, from the way It come. Science found It after a while, thirty miles high and twenty-five miles across, just exactly in the circle of the pyramid.

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? Remember that? 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...

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.

It appears that even Billy Paul Branham was confused by all of this, believing himself that his dad was hunting below the cloud when it appeared. Here is what Billy Paul said in the preface to the book, The Revelation of the Seven Seals. It is interesting to note that newer versions of the Seals book do not contain this language.

The Word of the Lord has promised that He would send to the earth once again the spirit of Elijah in the form of that End Time Messenger who was the Angel to the Seventh Church Age in these final closing days of time. We believe firmly that this promise was fulfilled in the vindicated ministry of our precious brother, William Marrion Branham. Throughout the life of this humble servant of the Lord, who so epitomized the Spirit of Christ, we find manifestations of God, which were so perfectly vindicated that they cannot be explained away by any natural reasoning. Of the hundreds of thousands of visions which the Lord gave to Brother Branham around the world, not one time has there ever occurred a vision which was not confirmed and attested to be the Word of the Lord. On December 30, 1962 at the Branham Tabernacle, Jeffersonville, Indiana, Brother Branham brought a message entitled Sirs, Is This The Time? [The Spoken Word Vol. II No.11] In this Message he told of a vision that instructed him to move to Tucson, Arizona with his family. This vision foretold a blast that would take place, the force of which would shake the whole country. This vision was fulfilled on Feb. 28, 1963 when 40 miles northeast of Tucson, Brother Branham was caught up in a constellation of seven angels and was told to return to his church in Jeffersonville, Indiana, where the mysteries of the Seven Seals would be revealed to him.

The events related to the “Cloud” when compared with William Branham’s story have a significant negative impact on his credibility.

ABM, you have previously stated that William Branham “embellished and exaggerated frequently” and that he had a “propensity to exaggerate.“

Personally, I think he is just outright lying based on a magazine story that he thought he could use to further promote himself as a prophet.

The smoking gun is that he mentioned none of the events related to the cloud until 3 months after the appearance of the cloud.

Why should we not reject everything that William Branham has to say about the cloud?

Shalom,

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

Addendum by ABM

BTS,

One small addendum I would like to add:

I do tend to believe James McDonald's account regarding the source of the cloud. It makes sense. But I think it is important to note that James McDonald, before he concluded the origin of the cloud, was being hounded by certain idolators in the Branham movement trying to get him to say it was supernatural. And only after their hounding, he determined the natural origin of the cloud. Once again, it is that element of people who are directly responsible for so many problems. I dare say this would not even be an issue if where not for the way they have went crazy with this kind of stuff. Then after McDonald died they went to his funeral and left the place speaking evil of the man. Who does that? Crazy people.

There have been people in the movement causing problems all along, harassing people. And this kind of nuttery still goes on.

Kind Regards,

ABM

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines

Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us