A Response to Allistair Francis

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

Click here to find out about the new definitive book on William Branham and the Message - Under The Halo: Examining the Legacy of William Branham

On January 16, 2026, Allistair Francis, a message preacher in South Africa, published a YouTube video titled Discouraged by the Message and the Prophet: The Message on Trial.

It is blindingly obvious that Allistair Francis has not read our book, Under The Halo, nor has he read any of the information on this website. As a result, we must label him as "willingly ignorant" which is not a good state to be in when you are commenting on a subject. We deal with this in more detail below.

The following is a critical analysis and point-by-point logical deconstruction of the arguments raised in his video.

PART I: VIDEO SUMMARY

Overview

This video, titled “Discouraged by the Message and the Prophet – The Message on Trial,” is delivered by Pastor Allistair Francis, son of the late Pastor Stephen Francis, who identifies as a “Message” believer – a follower of William Branham's teachings. Allistair Francis has been in the Message his entire life, raised in it from birth. The stated purpose of this video is to address young people and families who have become “discouraged” after encountering critical material from websites like “Believe the Sign” and “Seek the Truth” which document problems with Branham's ministry.

Speaker's Stated Position

The speaker claims he is not trying to “convince” anyone, but rather to “appeal to faith.” He acknowledges some criticisms of “Message” churches are valid (cultish behavior, control, legalism) but maintains Branham was a true prophet. He frames his defense as showing that accusations against Branham mirror accusations made against Jesus Christ and John the Baptist.

Core Arguments Presented

1. The “Revelation” Defense: Critics cannot understand Branham's words because they lack “revelation” (citing John 8:43).
2. The Elijah Defense: Branham is the Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6; John the Baptist also denied being Elijah when asked.
3. The “Same Accusations Against Christ” Defense: All accusations against Branham were also made against Jesus.
4. The Immoral Associates Defense: Jesus also had questionable people around him (prostitutes, publicans).
5. The Failed Prophecy Defense: Jesus also had “failed prophecies” (Matthew 24:34).
6. The Failed Men Defense: Jesus also ordained Judas who betrayed him.
7. The 1963 Cloud Defense: Branham never claimed to be present on February 28th; the cloud was a personal sign for him alone.
8. The “Where Will You Go?” Defense: No other church has correct doctrine on all points.
9. The “Hurt People” Deflection: Critics are emotionally wounded and obsessed, not objective.

PART II: CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND REBUTTALS

Preliminary Observations: Fundamental Flaws in Allistair Francis's Approach

Before addressing the specific arguments, two critical methodological problems must be noted that undermine the entire video from the outset.

Critical Flaw #1: Willful Ignorance of the Evidence

THE ADMISSION

Allistair Francis explicitly states: “I haven't taken the time like I would like to... to go to the website of Believe the Sign or Seek Ye the Truth and look at all the material that they have to put out and try to refute some of the things. I just haven't and I haven't had the time.” He further admits: “I still don't feel the need to” research the material thoroughly.

THE PROBLEM

This is an astonishing admission that completely disqualifies this video as a serious response to the criticisms.

Francis is attempting to defend William Branham against documented research while openly admitting he has not bothered to read most of that research. This is intellectually indefensible. Consider: this is a man who has been immersed in the Message his entire life, whose father was a Message pastor, who now leads a Message congregation – yet he claims he hasn't had time to examine the evidence against the very foundation of his faith and ministry. After decades in the Message, he still hasn't found time? This excuse strains credulity. The websites he dismisses contain:

• Hundreds of documented instances where Branham's stories changed over time
• Primary source documents (newspapers, government records, historical archives)
• Side-by-side comparisons of Branham's contradictory statements
• Exposed lies about meetings with world leaders that never occurred
• Exposed connections between Branham and Jim Jones

To respond to this massive body of evidence by saying “I haven't had the time” and “I don't feel the need” is not humility – it is willful ignorance. It reveals that Francis is not taking the criticisms seriously, is not taking his congregation's questions seriously, and is not taking the truth seriously.

If a defense attorney showed up to court saying, “I haven't read the prosecution's evidence, but let me tell you why my client is innocent,” they would be committing malpractice. Francis is doing the spiritual equivalent. He is asking young people to stake their eternal souls on a man whose documented failings he admits he cannot be bothered to investigate.

Critical Flaw #2: The “No True Message Believer” Fallacy

THE CLAIM

Francis argues that people who left the Message “really what they left was Branhamism and not really the message” because “they just don't know the message.” He claims many were in churches with wrong perceptions of the message.

THE PROBLEM

This is a textbook “No True Scotsman” fallacy combined with moving the goalposts.

The Logical Fallacy Exposed: The “No True Scotsman” fallacy works like this: “No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.” “But my uncle Angus is Scottish and he puts sugar in his porridge.” “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.” The definition keeps shifting to exclude counterexamples. Francis does exactly this: people who followed Branham and then left after examining evidence weren't really in “the Message” – they were in “Branhamism.”

The Definition Problem: If people are following William Branham's teachings, attending Message churches, listening to his recorded sermons, and organizing their lives around his doctrines – that is “the Message” by any reasonable definition. “The Message” literally refers to William Branham's message. To claim these people were in “Branhamism” rather than “the Message” is a distinction without a difference. It's like saying someone wasn't really following Islam, they were following “Muhammadism.”

The Burden He Refuses to Meet: If Francis wants to distinguish between “the Message” and “Branhamism,” he must define what “knowing the Message” actually means. He never does this. What specific beliefs qualify someone as truly knowing the Message? What threshold of understanding must be met? Without clear criteria, this distinction is meaningless – it's simply a rhetorical device to dismiss anyone who examines Branham's claims and finds them wanting.

Critical Flaw #3: The Isaac Noriega Hypocrisy

THE CLAIM

Francis states in this video that he agrees with some criticisms from anti-Branham sites because some Message churches “idolize brother Branham” and engage in “cultish behavior.” He claims: “I am the hardest on message people. I don't even speak against denominational people or other religions as much as I go against people in the message who I feel are stepping out of line.” He specifically criticizes extreme legalism such as members having to ask the pastor permission on what color to paint their house, which car to buy, and how to handle their finances. He condemns churches that excommunicate people and treat them “like vermin or like they have leprosy.”

THE PROBLEM

This claim of being “hard on Message churches” and opposing cultish behavior is directly contradicted by his close personal relationship with Pastor Isaac Noriega of Golden Dawn Tabernacle – one of the most extreme legalistic pastors in the Message movement, whose church has made front-page news multiple times for alarming abuse cases, and who practices exactly the kind of controlling behavior Francis claims to oppose.

The Documentary Evidence: In a published tribute, Allistair Francis wrote about Isaac Noriega: “Brother Isaac, you may never know how much you mean to me. You and Dad have been to me the Word made flesh. I have never met Brother Branham to believe what he said was the truth! I have never known Christ, but through the two of you. I only believe that living the life of this message is worth the while, because of you and Dad. You and Dad have made this Word real to me. Please hold on my brother! The world needs more men like you. Without you the standard of the Word will cease on this earth.”

Francis also composed a poem praising Noriega, describing him as “a great man, a father in the Gospel, a son of God, a brother in Christ, a mentor in the ministry, a shepherd of men, a bright light shining in the darkest time!” The poem describes Noriega's hair as “Glistening with the Oil of Anointing,” his brow as “Lined by unrelenting concern for the sheep,” his eyes as “Focused on the right path, undimmed by sin,” and concludes by describing his heart as “a fountain pumping out the life of saints.”

The Staggering Contradiction: Isaac Noriega's Golden Dawn Tabernacle has been featured on the front page of newspapers multiple times for alarming abuse cases within the church. Noriega runs exactly the kind of high-control, legalistic church that Francis claims to oppose – the kind where members cannot make personal decisions without pastoral approval, where those who leave are shunned and treated as spiritual lepers, where extreme control is exercised over every aspect of members' lives. Yet this is the man Francis calls “the Word made flesh,” the man through whom he claims to have “known Christ,” the man whose shoes are “very hard to fill,” the man without whom “the standard of the Word will cease on this earth.”

The Question He Must Answer: How can Francis claim to be “the hardest on Message people” who engage in cultish control, while simultaneously writing poems exalting one of the most controlling, legalistic pastors in the entire Message movement? How can he criticize churches that won't let members paint their houses without permission, while praising a pastor whose church has generated newspaper headlines for abuse? This is not a minor inconsistency – it is a fundamental contradiction that exposes his criticism of cultish behavior as performative rhetoric rather than genuine conviction.

If Francis genuinely opposed the extremism he describes in this video, Isaac Noriega would be at the top of his list of pastors to criticize and distance himself from – not the subject of fawning tributes declaring him “the Word made flesh.”

What This Reveals: Francis's claim to be harder on Message churches than on denominations is performative rhetoric designed to appear reasonable and balanced. In practice, his loyalty to the Message network – including to figures with documented problems – remains intact. His criticism is reserved for abstract “cultish churches” he doesn't name, while he actively celebrates and defends specific Message leaders regardless of their documented conduct. This is not the behavior of someone genuinely concerned about abuse in Message churches – it's the behavior of someone managing public relations.

Critical Flaw #4: The “My Church Was Different” Defense

THE CLAIM: Francis explains that he didn't grow up in a church that “obsessed about William Branham” or “spewed vitriol and hate toward others.” He describes his father, the late Pastor Stephen Francis, as “basically the pastor of the community” who counseled people of all faiths, never refused help to anyone outside their church, and maintained peace with other religions. Francis says this is why accusations against Message churches were “confusing” to him.

THE PROBLEM: While the late Pastor Stephen Francis's community-minded approach was indeed noble, his son's positive personal experience does not negate – and cannot be used to dismiss – the harsh, well-documented reality of abuse, elitism, and extremism in the vast majority of mainstream Message churches.

The Anecdotal Fallacy: Francis is using his personal experience as a child in one atypical Message church to cast doubt on the documented experiences of thousands of former members from hundreds of churches worldwide. This is like someone whose father was a kind police officer dismissing systemic police brutality because “that wasn't my experience.” Personal positive experiences, however genuine, do not invalidate systemic problems.

The Exception Proves the Rule: The very fact that Francis describes his upbringing as different – that he was “fortunate” to grow up in a “small country town” where things were peaceful – is an implicit admission that his experience was not typical. If open, community-minded Message churches were the norm, he wouldn't need to explain how his church was different from others he visited where “the legalism was so off the charts” and women were wrapped in cloths at the door.

Ignorance Is Not a Defense: Francis admits he found the accusations against Message churches “confusing” because of his sheltered upbringing. But he is no longer a child. He is now a Message pastor with decades of experience. He admits in this very video that he has visited other Message churches where he witnessed extreme legalism, that he knows of churches that are “without a doubt just cults,” and that many people have been “severely injured by church tradition.” His claimed ignorance is selective – he knows the problems exist but uses his childhood experience to maintain plausible deniability.

The Scope of the Problem: The websites Francis dismisses (while admitting he hasn't read them thoroughly) document systemic patterns across Message churches globally: shunning of former members, control over personal decisions (what to wear, who to marry, what color to paint houses), treating those who leave as spiritually dead, breaking up families, financial exploitation, protection of abusers, and psychological manipulation. These are not isolated incidents from a few bad churches – they are consistent patterns reported by thousands of former members from multiple countries spanning decades. One good church in a small town does not erase this reality.

The Responsibility He Avoids: As a Message pastor with a platform, Francis has a responsibility to do more than say “my church was different.” If he genuinely believes the abuses are wrong, he should be naming the abusive churches, warning his congregation about specific dangerous ministers, and advocating for accountability within the Message movement. Instead, he criticizes abstract “cultish behavior” while writing poems praising specific Message leaders whose churches have generated abuse headlines. His father's legacy of community service deserves better than to be used as a shield against accountability for a movement-wide pattern of harm.

Arguments Rebutted

Argument 1: “You Need Revelation to Understand”

THE CLAIM: Critics misunderstand Branham because they lack “revelation” of his words, citing John 8:43 where Jesus tells the Pharisees they cannot understand his speech because they cannot hear his word.

REBUTTAL: This is a classic unfalsifiable circular argument and thought-terminating cliche used by cults worldwide.

Logical Fallacy: This creates an impenetrable epistemic loop: Agreement proves you have revelation; disagreement proves you lack it. By this standard, no claim can ever be evaluated on its merits. This is identical to the reasoning used by Jehovah's Witnesses (“you need Jehovah's spirit”), Mormons (“pray for a burning in the bosom”), and Scientologists (“you haven't reached the right level”).

Misuse of Scripture: John 8:43 refers to the Pharisees rejecting the clear testimony that Jesus was the Messiah despite overwhelming evidence. Jesus was not speaking in code requiring special gnosis. He spoke plainly: “I told you, and you do not believe” (John 10:25). The Pharisees' problem was willful rejection, not lack of mystical insight.

The Double Standard: The speaker applies this “revelation” requirement only to Branham's critics, not to critics of other religions. Would he accept a Muslim saying, “You cannot understand the Quran because you lack spiritual revelation”? Of course not. Yet he demands critics grant Branham this special immunity from scrutiny.

The Real Problem: When a teacher's words are so confusing that his own followers admit they “look so confusing to people reading at face value,” the problem lies with the teacher, not the audience. Jesus said his sheep know his voice (John 10:27). If Branham's “sheep” constantly need apologists to explain why the plain meaning of his words isn't what he really meant, that's not revelation – that's damage control.

Argument 2: Branham as the Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6

THE CLAIM: Although Jesus identified John the Baptist as Elijah (Matthew 11:14), and John denied being Elijah (John 1:21), Branham is the “real” Elijah for the end times because Malachi 4:5-6 wasn't fully fulfilled in John's day.

REBUTTAL: This argument contradicts the explicit words of Jesus Christ and employs special pleading.

Jesus Settled This Question: In Matthew 11:13-14, Jesus said definitively: “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come.” In Matthew 17:12-13, after the Transfiguration, Jesus stated even more clearly: “Elias is come already, and they knew him not... Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.” There is no ambiguity here. Jesus personally, explicitly, and repeatedly identified John the Baptist as the fulfillment of the Elijah prophecy.

Why John Denied Being Elijah: John denied being Elijah because the Jews were asking if he was the literal, resurrected Elijah returned from heaven (2 Kings 2:11). John correctly denied this – he was not the historical Elijah returned bodily. Jesus explained John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (Luke 1:17). There is no contradiction, and this provides no precedent for Branham.

The “Which Elijah Identified Ahab?” Fallacy: Francis asks which claimant to the Elijah role “identified Ahab and Jezebel” (Pentecostalism and Catholicism), which one was “rough around the edges,” which one was “a wilderness man, uneducated,” and which one faces “the greatest amount of resistance.” This is pure question-begging combined with fabricating criteria out of thin air.

These Prerequisites Are Completely Made Up: There is absolutely no biblical requirement that a future Elijah must: (1) identify Pentecostalism as “Ahab” – a bizarre claim given that Ahab was a wicked king, not a religious movement, and Pentecostalism didn't even exist until the 20th century; (2) identify the Roman Catholic Church as “Jezebel” – another retrofitted interpretation with no scriptural mandate; (3) be “uneducated” or “rough around the edges” – the Bible never says Elijah must be unpolished; or (4) face “the greatest resistance” – persecution is not a unique validator since every false prophet also faces resistance. Francis has simply invented a checklist that conveniently matches Branham, then declared Branham the winner for matching criteria that Francis himself created. This is circular reasoning at its most blatant.

The Absurdity of the “Ahab = Pentecostalism” Claim: In Scripture, Ahab was a specific wicked king of Israel who married the pagan Jezebel and led Israel into Baal worship. The idea that “Ahab” prophetically represents Pentecostalism – a Christian revival movement that emphasizes the Holy Spirit – is interpretive gymnastics with no exegetical basis. By what hermeneutical principle does a wicked idolatrous king become a symbol for Spirit-filled Christianity? This is not biblical interpretation; it's free association designed to make Branham's attacks on other Christians seem prophetically mandated.

The “Jezebel = Catholic Church” Trope: The identification of the Roman Catholic Church with Jezebel or the “Whore of Babylon” is a centuries-old Protestant polemic, not a unique Branham revelation. Martin Luther, John Calvin, and countless Protestant preachers made this identification long before Branham was born. If “identifying Jezebel as Rome” qualifies someone as Elijah, then there have been thousands of Elijahs throughout church history. This is not a distinguishing mark – it's a common Protestant talking point that Branham simply repeated.

The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Problem: Branham invented this interpretive framework, declared himself its fulfillment, and his followers now use his invented framework to validate his claims. This is like someone declaring “The true Messiah will identify McDonald's as Babylon and Burger King as the False Prophet,” then identifying McDonald's as Babylon, and having followers say “See? He identified Babylon! He must be the Messiah!” The criteria have no independent biblical basis – they exist solely because Branham said them and did them.

Argument 3: The “Elijah is Christ” Confusion

THE CLAIM: Branham's statement that “the Elijah of this day is the Lord Jesus Christ” isn't claiming to be God – it's a complex theological point about types and shadows.

REBUTTAL: The speaker's attempt to explain this statement actually confirms the confusion is endemic to Branham's teaching.

The Admission of Confusion: The speaker admits this statement “looks so confusing to people reading at face value.” If Branham was a clear communicator of divine truth, why do his own followers constantly need to explain that he didn't mean what he plainly said?

The Zechariah Explanation Doesn't Work: The speaker tries to explain this by referencing “two olive trees” in Zechariah as “Old Testament types of Christ.” This is eisegesis – reading meaning into the text rather than out of it. Zechariah 4 identifies the two olive trees as “the two anointed ones” (Zerubbabel and Joshua in context). They are not “types of Christ that make Elijah equivalent to Christ.” This is theological word salad designed to obscure rather than clarify.

This Confusion Is a Stumbling Block to Salvation: Beyond being theologically incoherent, this kind of confused teaching is actively detrimental to evangelism and the salvation of souls. When Branham says “the Elijah of this day is the Lord Jesus Christ” while his followers maintain he is Elijah, outsiders reasonably conclude that Message believers are claiming Branham is God. This confusion drives people away from Christ rather than toward Him. If the purpose of a prophet is to point people to Jesus, a teaching methodology that makes people think the prophet is Jesus (or equal to Jesus) is catastrophically counterproductive. The Message's tangled Christology is not a minor doctrinal quirk – it is a barrier to the very gospel it claims to proclaim.

Francis's Claim That 'None of Us' Worship Branham Is Demonstrably False: Francis asserts: “We don't worship him. We don't bow down to him. We don't pray in his name. So... among us none of us are saying he's God.” This statement is flatly untrue. There are documented cases and photographic evidence of Message believers literally praying to pictures of William Branham. Some Message groups do pray in Branham's name, do treat his words as equal to or superior to Scripture, and do venerate him in ways indistinguishable from worship. Francis may not do these things in his particular church, but to claim “none of us” do this is either willful ignorance or deliberate dishonesty. The extreme veneration of Branham – including prayers to his image – is not a fringe phenomenon invented by critics; it is a documented reality within segments of the Message movement that Francis is either unaware of or choosing to deny.

Argument 4: Immoral Associates Defense

THE CLAIM: Accusations about homosexuals and immoral people working with Branham (Gene, Leo, Ern Baxter, etc.) are irrelevant because Jesus also associated with prostitutes and sinners. Regarding “the Park” recording studio and the documented sexual abuse that occurred there, Francis claims: “I have no knowledge of this to whether this is true.”

REBUTTAL: This is a spectacular false equivalence that actually undermines Branham's prophetic claims – and the claimed ignorance about the Park is simply not credible.

The 'I Have No Knowledge' Defense Is Not Credible: Francis claims he has “no knowledge” of whether the sexual abuse at the Park recording studio is true. This strains credulity to the breaking point. The abuse that occurred at the Park is not a secret conspiracy theory whispered in dark corners – it is documented in newspapers, detailed in books, and recorded in criminal records. Most Message people are aware of this history. For a Message pastor who has been in the movement his entire life, whose father was a Message pastor, who claims to counsel people about these very issues – to claim complete ignorance about one of the most well-documented scandals in Message history is either a deliberate lie or willful ignorance so profound it disqualifies him from speaking on these matters. You cannot simultaneously position yourself as someone who addresses accusations against Branham while claiming ignorance of accusations that are public record.

The 'Why Wasn't This Brought Up Earlier?' Argument Is Disgraceful: Francis attempts to cast doubt on these accusations by asking why they were not brought up during Branham's lifetime: “Why did these people not bring it up in the day when they were with brother Branham?” The answer is so obvious it is shocking that a pastor would even ask this question: because the victims were still children at that time.

This is one of the oldest and most disgraceful tactics used to protect abusers and discredit victims. Children who are sexually abused do not hold press conferences. They do not file lawsuits while still under the control of their abusers. They often do not speak out until years or decades later – if ever – because of trauma, shame, fear, and the power dynamics that kept them silent. To suggest that accusations are less credible because they came “after the fact” is to fundamentally misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) how childhood sexual abuse works.

The fact that Francis would even float this argument – “why didn't they say something sooner?” – reveals either a breathtaking ignorance about sexual abuse dynamics or a willingness to use abuse-apologist rhetoric to protect Branham's reputation. Either way, it is disqualifying. A pastor who asks “why didn't child victims speak up sooner?” has no business counseling abuse survivors or speaking on matters of church accountability.

Completely Out of Touch With the Pain: Francis's cavalier treatment of these accusations – his claimed ignorance, his “why didn't they speak up sooner” rhetoric, his dismissive tone – reveals a man completely out of touch with the immense pain and abuse that has taken place in the Message movement. Real people were abused. Real children were violated. Real families were destroyed. Real lives were shattered. These are not abstract debate points to be waved away with “I have no knowledge of this.”

If Francis had taken the time to actually research these matters – to read the testimonies, to review the court records, to listen to the survivors – he would approach this topic with humility, gravity, and respect for those who suffered. Instead, he treats documented abuse as just another “accusation” to be deflected with rhetorical tricks. This is not the posture of a shepherd caring for wounded sheep. This is the posture of an institutional defender protecting a brand at any cost – including the cost of further wounding those who have already been devastated by Message church abuse.

His admitted refusal to research the evidence is not a neutral position – it is a choice to remain ignorant so he can continue to dismiss what he hasn't bothered to learn. And that willful ignorance comes at the expense of abuse survivors who deserve to be heard, believed, and validated – not dismissed by a pastor who can't be troubled to read their stories.

Jesus Knew Exactly Who People Were: When Jesus associated with sinners, he did so deliberately and with full knowledge, calling them to repentance. He told the woman at the well about her five husbands (John 4:18). He knew Judas would betray him from the beginning (John 6:64). This was the exercise of divine omniscience for redemptive purposes. The criticism of Branham isn't that he associated with sinners (all ministers do), but that he allegedly employed them in positions of trust while claiming prophetic gifts that should have revealed their character.

The Prophetic Discernment Problem: Branham claimed to have a gift of discernment so powerful he could tell people their names, addresses, diseases, and sins by supernatural revelation. His followers point to this as proof of his prophetic office. Yet he allegedly failed to discern the moral character of his own inner circle? You cannot have it both ways. Either he had supernatural discernment (in which case he knowingly employed these people) or he didn't (in which case his “discernment ministry” was fraudulent).

The Source of These Claims: The speaker notes these accusations come from Lee Vayle, a “Message” minister, not from external critics. When insiders who knew Branham personally are making these statements, dismissing them as “accusations brought after death” is dishonest. The speaker admits, “I have no way of checking this.” But neither can he dismiss it – and he's trying to have it both ways.

The Naked Young Man Argument is Absurd: The speaker bizarrely suggests that Mark 14:51-52 (a young man who fled naked when Jesus was arrested) might have been homosexual following Jesus. This is pure speculation with zero textual support, introduced solely to manufacture a parallel that doesn't exist. This desperation reveals the weakness of the defense.

Argument 5: The Failed Prophecies Defense

THE CLAIM: Branham's failed prophecies are comparable to Matthew 24:34 where Jesus said “this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled” – yet that generation passed and Jesus hasn't returned. Critics of Branham are hypocrites if they don't also reject Christ.

REBUTTAL: This is a catastrophically bad argument that inadvertently groups Branham with skeptics against Christ.

The Speaker Agrees With Atheists: The speaker explicitly frames Matthew 24:34 as an apparent failed prophecy, saying, “Historians and people who criticize Christ say that all those things did not come to pass and that generation had died. Therefore, Christ is a false prophet.” He then admits, “These same people leaving the message. When atheists and other people ask you, 'Where's the proof of Jesus Christ?' You can't answer.” This is a remarkable admission. He's essentially conceding the atheist argument has force, then using it as a shield for Branham.

Christians Have Explanations for Matthew 24:34: Unlike Branham's prophecies, Christians have developed coherent explanations for Matthew 24: (1) “This generation” refers to the Jewish race/nation which would endure to see fulfillment; (2) The prophecy had a dual fulfillment – partially in 70 AD with Jerusalem's destruction, completely at Christ's return; (3) “Generation” (genea) can mean “kind” or “type” of people. The speaker dismisses the fig tree interpretation but offers no alternative – he just shrugs and says skeptics “cannot explain” it either. That's not a defense; that's surrender.

Branham's Prophecies Are Categorically Different: Branham made specific, dated predictions that definitively failed: The world would be destroyed by 1977. Los Angeles would sink into the Pacific Ocean. The Roman Catholic Church would take over the US monetary system. America started World War 2. These aren't ambiguous apocalyptic imagery requiring interpretation – they're concrete claims about specific events that did not happen. There is no interpretive framework that makes “destroyed by 1977” mean anything other than what it plainly says.

The Deuteronomy 18:22 Standard: “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.” Branham said “Thus Saith the Lord” before predictions that failed. By the Bible's own standard, he is a false prophet. No amount of comparing him to Christ changes this.

Argument 6: Failed Men in the Message

THE CLAIM: Criticizing Branham because men he ordained later fell into false doctrine or immorality is unfair – Jesus ordained Judas, Peter denied him, and the 70 disciples forsook him.

REBUTTAL: Again, this comparison inadvertently undermines Branham's prophetic claims.

Jesus Knew and Stated This in Advance: Jesus explicitly said, “Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?” (John 6:70). He predicted Peter's denial before it happened (Luke 22:34). He knew the 70 would leave. This wasn't prophetic failure – it was prophetic foreknowledge. The question for Branham is: did he predict that his ordained men would fail? Or did he vouch for them and get it wrong?

The Scale of the Problem: Jesus had one betrayer among twelve. By contrast, critics allege systemic issues among Branham's associates and successors. The speaker admits there are “cults” within the Message movement, churches that control members to the point of telling them what color to paint their houses. If Branham's ministry produced this level of dysfunction, that reflects on the ministry itself.

The “Only 120 Believers” Argument Backfires: The speaker argues, “Jesus was the Messiah... and all he could get was 11 disciples and a church of 120 people.” This is meant to lower expectations for Branham. But it actually highlights a key difference: Jesus' 120 believers turned the world upside down (Acts 17:6). They produced the New Testament, converted the Roman Empire, and established a faith that has endured 2,000 years. What has the “Message” movement produced? Fractured sects, false prophecies, and a legacy of confusion – plus connections to Jim Jones's People's Temple.

Argument 7: The 1963 Cloud Defense

THE CLAIM: Branham never said he was present on February 28, 1963 when the cloud was photographed. The cloud was a personal sign to vindicate the seventh seal to Branham alone – “it was for him, not for you.” People who doctored the image afterward were overzealous followers, not Branham himself.

REBUTTAL: Francis's defense of the cloud actually constitutes a comprehensive admission that the critics are right – and his advice to followers is essentially 'don't argue because you'll lose.'

The Devastating Admissions: In attempting to defend the cloud narrative, Francis makes the following admissions: (1) Branham was not present on February 28, 1963 when the cloud was photographed; (2) Branham only began talking about the cloud after reading about it in a Life Magazine article – in Francis's words, the cloud “resonated” with Branham when he read the article; (3) Branham's accounts of what happened are “conflicting in the details” and he was “all over the place” in his telling. These are not minor concessions – they are the entire substance of the critics' case.

The 'Story Conflicting But Experience Same' Argument: Francis's defense boils down to: “The story might be conflicting, but the experience is the same.” This is a breathtakingly weak argument. If the story is “conflicting” – if Branham wasn't there when the cloud appeared, if he only connected himself to it after reading a magazine, if his accounts contradict each other – then on what basis can we trust that the “experience” was real? The “experience” is known only through the conflicting stories. If the stories are unreliable, the experience they describe is unverifiable. This is grasping at straws.

The Remarkable Advice: Don't Argue, You'll Lose: Perhaps the most revealing moment comes when Francis advises his audience: “Don't go and try to argue with the Believe the Sign people. You'll just come up short. Don't do that.” Read that again. A defender of the Message is telling believers not to engage with the evidence because they will lose the argument. This is an extraordinary admission. If the Message were true, its defenders would welcome scrutiny. If the cloud narrative were accurate, believers could confidently present the evidence. Instead, Francis tells them to avoid the debate entirely because they cannot win it. This is not the advice of someone confident in the truth of their position – it is the advice of someone who knows the evidence is against them.

The 'God Permitted the Confusion' Escape: When confronted with the contradictions he has just admitted, Francis retreats to: “If you're confused, this was no mistake. God permitted it because God knew it was going to happen. God permitted it.” He claims God knew this whole “ruckus” of coming against the Message was going to happen. This is theological surrender dressed as piety. When you cannot defend the facts, claim God intended the confusion. This makes God the author of deception – a position that contradicts Scripture (“God is not the author of confusion” – 1 Corinthians 14:33) and basic theology. If God “permitted” a prophet to tell conflicting stories that would cause people to doubt and leave, then either God is deliberately deceptive or Branham was not speaking for God.

The Scientific Reality: The cloud photographed on February 28, 1963 was at an altitude of approximately 26 miles – far too high for any natural cloud formation (water droplets don't exist at that altitude). Scientists have documented that a Thor rocket was detonated in that area around that time, and the cloud's characteristics are consistent with a high-altitude explosion. Branham wasn't there on February 28th (by his own later admission and now Francis's admission). He arrived in the area approximately a week later. Whatever experience he claims to have had in March cannot be the same event as the photographed cloud in February.

The 'It Was For Him Alone' Retreat: The speaker's claim that the cloud “was not for you” and “stop making it about you” is a remarkable reversal. For decades, the cloud has been used as the primary visual evidence of Branham's supernatural ministry. It appears in publications, websites, and is shown to prospective converts as proof. Now, when it's been debunked, the fallback is: “It was just personal validation for Branham.” If it was personal, why did Branham and his followers publicize it as universal proof?

Then Stop Using It As Vindication: Francis claims the cloud had nothing to do with Message believers – it was only a personal experience for Branham. Fine. Then why does Voice of God Recordings prominently feature the cloud image? Why is it on publications, websites, and promotional materials? Why is it shown to prospective converts as “proof” of Branham's supernatural ministry? Why do Message churches hang pictures of the cloud on their walls? If the cloud was merely Branham's private experience with no relevance to believers, then the entire Message movement needs to immediately stop using it as a “sign of vindication.” You cannot simultaneously claim “it was personal, not for you” while plastering the image everywhere as evidence of Branham's prophetic credentials. Francis wants to have it both ways: when the cloud is useful for recruiting, it's vindication; when it's been debunked, it's “personal.” Pick one.

The John the Baptist Parallel Doesn't Work: The speaker compares this to John the Baptist seeing a dove descend on Jesus. But John's testimony was consistent. He told the same story the same way. He didn't give conflicting accounts about when and where it happened. And crucially, John didn't build a ministry around distributing doctored images of the dove to prove his claims.

What Francis Has Actually Proven: By his own admissions in this video, Francis has confirmed: Branham was not present when the cloud was photographed. Branham connected himself to the cloud only after reading about it in a magazine. Branham's stories about the event are contradictory and unreliable. Believers cannot win an argument about this with critics. The only refuge is to claim God intended the confusion. This is not a defense of the cloud narrative – it is a complete capitulation to the critics' case, followed by an appeal to blind faith. Francis has proven the prosecution's case while wearing a defense attorney's suit.

Argument 8: “Where Will You Go?”

THE CLAIM: If you leave the Message, which church will you join? No denomination has correct doctrine on the Godhead, baptism, predestination, original sin, etc. No church will “withstand the mark of the beast.”

REBUTTAL: This is the appeal to fear fallacy and a false dichotomy used by controlling groups.

The Cult Marker: This argument is a textbook cult retention technique. Jehovah's Witnesses say: “Where will you go? Only we have the truth.” Mormons say the same. So does every high-control group. The message is: “Stay here because there's nowhere else.” This is manipulation through fear, not persuasion through truth.

The False Dichotomy: The choice is not “the Message or spiritual destruction.” Millions of Christians worldwide live faithful, godly lives without ever hearing William Branham's name. Historic Christianity existed for 1,900 years before Branham. The church was “withstanding” just fine.

The Admission of Doctrinal Problems: If Branham's “Message” is so confused that even his followers admit it “looks so confusing” and produces churches that are “without a doubt just cults,” perhaps the problem is the teaching itself. A perfect message from God would not generate such chaos.

Argument 9: Critics Have a “Massive Gap of Ignorance”

THE CLAIM: Francis claims he found “a massive gap of ignorance” among those who left the Message. He says they are “indoctrinated” by websites, “regurgitating” the same arguments, and that they “don't know the message” or “the Bible well enough to support their views.” He compares their arguments to those of Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists – implying they are similarly programmed.

REBUTTAL

Dismissing critics as “ignorant” does not address the documented evidence against Branham's ministry, and equating criticism of Branham with criticism of Christ is a category error of the highest order.

Ad Hominem Does Not Refute Evidence

Calling critics “ignorant” is an attack on the person, not an engagement with their arguments. The critical websites document specific, verifiable claims: Branham said X on this date, but said Y on that date. Branham claimed to meet a person who records show he never met. Branham predicted an event by a specific year that did not occur. These are factual claims that can be verified or falsified. Calling the people who compiled this research “ignorant” does not make the documented contradictions disappear.

The Irony of the 'Regurgitation' Accusation

Francis accuses critics of “regurgitating” arguments from websites. But what do Message believers do? They quote Branham's sermons verbatim. They repeat the same phrases: “Message of the hour,” “Thus Saith the Lord,” “vindicated prophet,” “Malachi 4:5-6.” They use the same arguments Francis uses in this very video. If repeating consistent arguments is evidence of “indoctrination,” then Message believers are equally indoctrinated – except critics are citing documented historical facts while Message believers are citing one man's claims about himself.

Branham Is Not Christ – The Category Error

Throughout this video, Francis repeatedly equates criticism of Branham with criticism of Jesus Christ, implying that if you apply critical standards to Branham, you must reject Christ too. This is a fundamental category error. Jesus Christ, according to Christian theology, is the eternal Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity, sinless and infallible. William Branham was a man born in Kentucky in 1909 who made specific, testable claims about events, dates, and prophecies. Pointing out that Branham's 1977 prediction failed is not equivalent to questioning the resurrection of Christ. Documenting that Branham's stories changed over time is not the same as rejecting the Gospels. Branham is not Christ. Criticizing Branham is not criticizing Christ. The attempt to wrap Branham in Christ's authority – to make criticism of Branham feel like blasphemy – is a manipulation tactic, not a logical argument.

The Evidence Stands Regardless of Critics' Knowledge

Even if every single critic of Branham were biblically illiterate (which is not true – many are former Message ministers and lifelong Bible students), the documented problems with Branham's ministry would remain. A failed prophecy is a failed prophecy regardless of who points it out. A story that changed five times over twenty years changed five times regardless of who documented the changes. The truth of the evidence does not depend on the credentials of the person presenting it. This is why Francis attacks the critics rather than the evidence – because the evidence cannot be so easily dismissed.

Who Is Really Ignorant?

Francis admitted at the beginning of this video that he has not taken the time to read the research on Believe the Sign or Seek the Truth. He says he “still doesn't feel the need to.” So we have a man who admits he hasn't studied the evidence accusing those who have studied the evidence of being ignorant. The researchers who compiled hundreds of documents, cross-referenced decades of sermon transcripts, obtained historical records, and built comprehensive databases of Branham's contradictions – these people are “ignorant”? And the man who can't be bothered to read their work is the knowledgeable one? This is projection of the highest order.

The 'We Just Want People to Believe the Bible' Contradiction

Francis claims that “Message people actually want to make people Christians. Message people actually want to make people believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and salvation for sins. We are not even trying to circumvent the Bible.” This sounds reasonable until you examine what the Message actually requires for salvation.

If Message believers simply wanted people to be Christians and believe the Bible, they would preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and leave it at that. But that is not what happens. To be part of the “Bride of Christ” according to Message doctrine, you must:

• Believe William Branham was a prophet
• Accept his interpretation of the Seven Church Ages
• Accept his interpretation of the Seven Seals
• Believe the Serpent Seed doctrine (that Eve had sexual relations with the serpent)
• Reject the Trinity as 'of the devil'
• Be baptized in Jesus' name only (rejecting Trinitarian baptism)
• Accept that denominational Christianity has 'the mark of the beast'
• Have 'revelation' of the 'Message of the hour'

None of these doctrines are found in the Bible. They are Branham's extra-biblical teachings that have been added to the gospel. A person could believe in Jesus Christ, accept Him as Lord and Savior, be baptized, read their Bible daily, and live a holy life – and according to Message doctrine, they would still not be part of the Bride because they lack 'revelation' of Branham's message.

This IS Circumventing the Bible

Francis claims they are not trying to circumvent the Bible, yet the Message explicitly teaches that the Bible alone is insufficient – you need Branham's 'revelation' to understand it correctly. This is the very definition of circumventing Scripture. It is identical to what Mormons claim about the Book of Mormon, what Jehovah's Witnesses claim about Watchtower publications, and what every cult claims about their founder's writings. If believing the Bible were truly sufficient, there would be no need for Branham's 1,200 recorded sermons to be treated as essential revelation. The very existence of 'the Message' as a distinct requirement proves that Message believers do not simply want people to believe the Bible – they want people to believe the Bible as interpreted by Branham, which is an entirely different thing. That is circumventing the Bible with a capital C.

Argument 10: People Who Leave Will Become Atheists

THE CLAIM: Francis claims people who leave will eventually leave Christ altogether because critics use the same logic to debunk Branham that atheists use against the Bible.

REBUTTAL: This is a fear-mongering slippery slope fallacy combined with a fundamental misunderstanding of why people leave – and it is demonstrably false.

The Logic Is Not the Same: Critics of Branham point to: (1) Specific dated predictions that definitively failed (1977); (2) Stories that changed dramatically over time in recorded sermons; (3) Historical claims that can be fact-checked and proven false. These are testable claims with verifiable evidence. The atheist critique of Christianity rests on philosophical arguments about ancient history that cannot be directly verified. The evidentiary situations are completely different.

Many Who Leave Find Stronger Faith: The websites Francis criticizes were created by people who left the Message but remained Christians. Many former Message believers have joined orthodox Christian churches and report their faith in Christ has actually grown stronger after leaving Branham behind. Freed from the confusion of Branham's contradictory teachings, they have found clarity in Scripture and authentic Christian community. Francis is simply wrong about this.

If Some Do Leave Christianity, Ask Why: If some former Message believers do eventually leave Christianity altogether, the question should be: what did the Message do to their faith that made it so fragile? When you teach people that Branham's words are equal to Scripture, that his failed prophecies must be defended at all costs, that cognitive dissonance is “revelation,” and that questioning is forbidden – you are building a faith house on sand. When that house collapses (as it inevitably does when confronted with evidence), some people may lose everything because they were taught that Branham and Christ are a package deal. The Message set them up for this fall by fusing Branham to Christ. The blame lies with the teaching, not with those who discovered its falsehood.

The Real Fear Tactic: This argument is designed to frighten people into staying. “If you leave, you'll become an atheist” is spiritual terrorism. It's meant to make questioning feel dangerous, to make the exit door look like a cliff edge. This is how high-control groups keep members: not by demonstrating truth, but by making leaving seem catastrophic. A confident faith invites scrutiny. A fragile ideology threatens those who question it with dire predictions of spiritual doom.

The Ironic Self-Defeat: Francis argues that Jesus's miracles cannot be proven – they must be taken on faith – and therefore Branham's Message must be accepted the same way. He doesn't realize this argument actually strengthens the case for atheism rather than for Branham.

Think about what Francis is actually saying: “You can't prove Jesus's miracles. You can't prove Branham's claims. Therefore you should believe both on faith.” But the logical response to “neither can be proven” is not “believe both” – it's “why believe either?” Francis has inadvertently made the atheist position sound more reasonable than his own.

This is particularly damaging because Branham's claims are actually testable. We have his recorded sermons. We have newspapers from his era. We have government records. The evidence exists – and it consistently contradicts Branham's claims. So Francis retreats to “you can't prove anything” precisely because the evidence that does exist is devastating to his position. He is not helping his argument – he is dismantling it.

Argument 11: Critics Are Just “Hurt People

THE CLAIM: People who leave were hurt by churches, are emotional, have pride issues, and are obsessed. They're indoctrinated by anti-Branham websites.

REBUTTAL: This is the ad hominem fallacy – attacking the person rather than addressing the argument.

Genetic Fallacy: Even if every critic was hurt by a Message church, that doesn't make their criticisms false. A person who was abused by a doctor might be the first to notice malpractice. Emotional motivation doesn't invalidate factual claims. The question is: are the documented facts about Branham's failed prophecies, changing stories, and problematic teachings true? Attacking critics' motives doesn't answer this question.

The “Indoctrination” Accusation is Hypocritical: Francis accuses critics of being “indoctrinated” because they “quote the exact same things” from websites. But Message believers quote Branham's sermons verbatim, defend him with the same arguments, and repeat the same phrases (“Message of the hour,” “Thus Saith the Lord,” “vindicated prophet”). By his own standard, they're equally “indoctrinated.” The difference is: critics are citing documented facts and historical records. Message believers are citing one man's claims about himself.

The Concessions Undermine the Argument: Francis repeatedly admits the criticism has validity: “When they say some... there's cultish behavior, I agree.” “There are definitely some churches who are without a doubt just cults.” “Many a goodhearted sincere backslider has been severely injured by church tradition.” If critics are right about the cultish behavior, control, and injury – why would their other observations be automatically wrong?

The Real Dismissiveness: Francis admits Message churches dismiss those who leave by saying “they were never seed to begin with.” He says parents “suffer in silence” while their children are “soon forgotten.” This is cruel – and Francis, despite criticizing it, offers no repentance or correction. He just pivots to defending Branham. The human cost of the Message movement is acknowledged and then brushed aside.

Argument 12: “Biased Journalism” by Critical Websites

THE CLAIM: Websites like Believe the Sign are unfair because they only present the anti-Branham side.

REBUTTAL: This complaint is both hypocritical and misunderstands the nature of the research.

Critical Research vs. Promotional Material: Believe the Sign and similar sites exist specifically because Voice of God Recordings and Message churches have promoted Branham uncritically for decades. The pro-Branham side has had 60+ years to make its case through thousands of churches, millions of distributed materials, and a $100+ million organization. The critical sites aren't obligated to do promotional work for the Message movement.

The Facts Are the Point: The critical websites cite documents: newspaper articles, government records, Branham's own recorded sermons, and historical archives. These are primary sources. The response to documented facts isn't “you didn't interview supporters” – it's to dispute the facts themselves. Francis never says, “The 1977 prophecy didn't fail because...” or “The cloud actually was supernatural because...” He just complains about bias.

The Irony: Francis accuses critics of being “indoctrinated” by websites, yet he's the one employing thought-stopping techniques designed to prevent followers from taking criticism seriously. He's pre-emptively invalidating anyone who might be persuaded by evidence. This is not the behavior of someone confident in the truth of their position – it's the behavior of someone afraid their position cannot withstand scrutiny.

Argument 13: “God Ordained This Confusion”

THE CLAIM: The confusion around Branham's contradictory statements was ordained by God as a test of faith. God permitted it because He knew people would attack the Message.

REBUTTAL: This makes God the author of deception.

1 Corinthians 14:33: “For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.” If Branham's teachings are so confusing that even his followers admit they “look confusing,” that's evidence against divine origin, not for it.

The Unfalsifiable Escape: If contradictions prove divine testing, then no false prophet can ever be identified. Any problem becomes evidence of God's mysterious plan. This is special pleading that could justify any religious leader's failures.

The Real Question: Did Branham's statements change because (a) God was testing people with deliberate confusion, or (b) Branham was embellishing and contradicting himself like any fallible human? Occam's razor suggests the simpler explanation. The “God ordained it” defense is a last refuge when evidence cannot be explained.

---

Argument 14: The AI “Vindication” Argument

THE CLAIM: The speaker read a ChatGPT output that stated Branham was “unmatched” in evidence of prophetic gift. This proves even “secular AI” validates Branham.

REBUTTAL: This is perhaps the weakest argument in the entire video.

AI Doesn't Verify Truth: ChatGPT generates text based on patterns in its training data. It doesn't fact-check. If you ask it about any religious figure with devoted followers, it will produce similarly positive-sounding text because that's what exists in its training corpus.

The Criteria Problem: The speaker says the AI listed criteria for identifying prophets, and Branham met them. But by those same criteria, Joseph Smith (Mormonism), Muhammad (Islam), L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology), and even Jim Jones could be “validated.” Supernatural claims, devoted followers, and reported healings exist across many religious movements. If the criteria validate everyone, they validate no one.

“Let's Live by Faith” Retreat: After presenting this argument, Francis immediately dismisses it: “Maybe it's not enough. Who needs to trust AI anyway? Let's live by faith.” This reveals that even he knows the argument doesn't work. When your best evidence is an AI output you immediately disclaim, you have no evidence.

PART III: FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH THE VIDEO

1. The Defense Confirms the Prosecution

Throughout this video, Francis makes devastating admissions: Branham's statements “look so confusing.” His cloud accounts are “conflicting in the details.” Message churches have “cultish behavior.” People leave “hurt” and “unfairly treated.” Some churches are “without a doubt just cults.” If an attorney for the defense spent their closing argument confirming the prosecution's evidence, that case would be lost. Francis has done exactly this.

2. Lower Standards for Branham

Every argument follows the same pattern: find something problematic about Branham, compare it to something superficially similar about Christ, and declare that criticizing Branham means criticizing Christ. But the comparisons consistently show Christ meeting higher standards that Branham fails to meet. Jesus knew Judas was a devil from the beginning; Branham allegedly didn't know his associates' character. Jesus spoke openly; Branham was “all over the place.” Jesus' prophecies can be coherently explained; Branham's 1977 prediction cannot.

3. The Missing Response to Core Allegations

Francis never addresses the most damning documented claims: that Branham's life story changed repeatedly over his ministry; that his historical claims can be fact-checked and found false (meeting King George, praying for King Gustaf); that his connection to Jim Jones is documented; that his 1977 prediction definitively failed. Instead, he waves at “accusations” in general and argues we can't know anything for certain. This is not a defense; it's evasion.

4. Fear-Based Retention

The video's emotional climax isn't an appeal to truth but to fear: “Where will you go?” “Which church will withstand the mark of the beast?” “Everything you believe is going to be disproved.” “Will you stand when your family falls away?” This is spiritual terrorism. Truth doesn't need to threaten people into compliance. If the Message were true, it could be defended on evidence. The need to frighten young people into staying reveals that the evidence isn't there.

5. The Telling Concession About 'Branhamism

Francis distinguishes between “the Message” and “Branhamism,” admitting many who leave actually left “Branhamism and not really the message.” This creates an unfalsifiable position: anyone who leaves was never following the “real” Message. But Francis never defines what the “real” Message is versus Branhamism. He admits he grew up differently from other Message churches. So which version is authentic? If the prophet's own teachings have generated such divergent (and admittedly cultish) expressions, the problem lies with the original teaching, not just its interpreters.

CONCLUSION

This video, despite its length and emotional appeals, fails to address the substantive criticisms of William Branham's ministry. Instead, it employs a series of logical fallacies: circular reasoning (you need revelation to understand), genetic fallacy (critics are just hurt), false equivalence (criticizing Branham means criticizing Jesus), appeal to fear (where will you go?), and special pleading (God ordained the confusion).

Francis's own admissions – that Branham's statements are confusing, his accounts contradictory, his movement plagued by cultish behavior, and his followers often hurt by Message churches – constitute a more damning indictment than any external critic could make.

The title “The Message on Trial” is apt. But in this video, the defense has inadvertently proven the prosecution's case. Branham made specific, dated prophecies that failed. His stories changed over time. His supernatural claims cannot be verified and many have been disproved. His movement has produced confusion, division, and documented harm.

Young people leaving the Message are not doing so because they lack “revelation.” They're doing so because they've examined the evidence and found it wanting. The proper response to their questions isn't fear, emotional manipulation, or attacks on their character. It's honest engagement with the documented facts – something this video conspicuously fails to provide.

For those who have left or are considering leaving: you are not crazy. You are not deceived. You are not “hurt people” whose pain invalidates your observations. You have examined the evidence and drawn reasonable conclusions. There is life – and faith – beyond the Message. Millions of Christians worldwide worship Jesus Christ without ever having heard of William Branham, and their faith is no less valid for it.

The Biblical Standard Remains

“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken” (Deuteronomy 18:22). By this standard – God's own standard – William Branham stands condemned by his own words.

Video Transcript

Amen. We'd like to greet you in the precious name of the Lord Jesus Christ once again and certainly thankful to be back here on Wednesday nights and um back to work and we appreciate the time that God gives us to share his word. So without much ado because I think we have quite a bit to get to. I would like to begin and um we are going to speak on uh discouraged with the prophet and the message. That's our subject as I spoke to you about on the group. Um that's what the focus is and I'm going to introduce that to you. And for a title, it's going to be the message on trial. Amen. So, in the past months, since August last year, I've been questioned by young people who feel confused about the message based on things they have heard online or seen. And uh parents of young people who are just not interested in coming to church anymore. and some who have denounced the message. And um the concern of these parents is that churches dismiss those who leave as they are never been seed to begin with and are soon forgotten. While the parents are pining for their children and uh suffer in silence, the questions are all based on things they have heard or watched from material produced by Believe the Sign or Seek the Truth. And these are just the two that I've heard of. And um some would say there are other videos or testimonies or uh scandals that have been posted online that are anti- William Branom, anti- message, anti- message churches. So most young people want to know the truth about these accusations and um just some of them just want a chance to argue. You get those everywhere. But most of those that I have heard that is the young people um genuinely want an answer to remove their confusion. One of the main concerns of the parents was what answers do message ministers have to the accusations that are made against the prophet. So, first I want to say I haven't taken the time like I would like to and and I wish I had the time to go to the website of Believe the Sign or Seek You the Truth and and look at all the material that they have to put out and try to refute some of the things. I just haven't and I haven't had the time and I all I've done is respond to things that young people or people have asked me about what was said and um I wish I had the time to uh go and see what they put out and you know uh along with scores of others who have left what they call the message you know um and I say it that way because I believe that a lot of Leaving "Branhamism" vs. leaving the Message. people who left the message, they kind of left churches that claim to believe the message uh many have left it even being in good churches, but their their perception of of the message was actually wrong. So really what they left was branomism and not really the message. In my experience of speaking to these people and it's been quite a few uh or quite a lot rather saying it correctly is that they just don't know the message. Right? So I can only respond to things that are sent to me because I don't spend a lot of time online. Now, I've spent years responding to confused young people who brought me questions, but I was ignorant of where they were getting a lot of the stuff from until they told me of these two sources. And uh one young man emailed me an ebook a very long time ago which I read through but I had no idea that a website was made and all these things were were being posted and so I only became aware of these things as time went on but still did not have the desire to go in there and research everything. Um, so I still don't feel the need to uh and fortunately for for our church, I we've never had someone yet, you know, be discouraged by these websites to the point of leaving the message. And uh so maybe that's the reason I haven't had that feeling to do that. However, some of the material that is sent to me like in a clip or uh an excerpt um some of the material that I read which was sent that came from believe the sign I must say I agreed with some of the things they said I agreed with because it has always been my beef Agreeing with the critics: A critique of Message legalism and idolizing a man. with message people who idolize brother Brandham and overspiritualized everything to the point of losing important parts of just being human. And my church knows and people who have heard me preach that I am the hardest on message people. I don't even speak against denominational people or other religions as much as I go against people in the message who I feel are stepping out of line or you you know abusing the message or uh promoting brandism instead of promoting what the word is. So um the people in our church can attest to that. So um that's been my beef over the years since um I started in the ministry and I haven't made many friends because of those things. And so um I I believe that to the point where people obsess over something till they lose the feeling of being human to one another. And the important aspects of just being a normal person has escaped them. And there were others in the message who to this day over sensationalize everything to the point of defeating the very ends of the core of the message even to the point of going against things that the prophet even said like that we should not do the way we should act things like that. So that being said, I didn't grow up in a church that obsessed about William Brandham and uh that uh you know, we didn't disrespect and cast aside denominational people. I didn't grow up under a ministry that spewed vitriol and hate toward others. We grew up in a community at peace with religions and churches. I'm I'm just saying this as a personal thing because maybe we were fortunate growing up in a small country town where we were known by everybody and we uh you know we were at peace with everybody. We we didn't spend our time going around and spewing hate towards people. We didn't care much for online presence and you know things like that. We we we didn't feel the need to be unpleasant to other people and our home would be filled with with message believers and Hindus and Muslims and denominational Christians. So I didn't grow up with the things that I'm hearing as accusations against me people. You can imagine why some of it was so confusing. And um our pastor, my dad, counseledled people of all kinds and was basically the pastor of the community, never even refusing help to any person who wasn't even in our church. um to the point where when uh he passed away, I think if it were not co time um the majority of people who would would have been at his funeral would have been people not even in our church. So I'm just giving you an example of where I came from and the reason why I'm going to respond the way I am going to in today's segment. So this is why it was confusing when I would visit other message churches in our travels where the legalism was so off the charts where I would see them wrap cloth or shaws around women who were inappropriate inappropriately dressed. Uh if they came to the doors of the church, the deacons wouldn't allow them in unless they were covered up. And this would just chase people away and they would people would be denied entry into the church service or in other places where gifts of the Holy Ghost was so totally out of control to the point of creating rampant unrighteousness for decades. And it's because they were trying to emulate um things that occurred on the tapes in the prophet's life. and they shouldn't have been trying to do that because that was his ministry and not ours. So I don't know the people who started believe the sign. I don't know them personally or seek ye the truth. I do not know any of them personally and I don't know why they chose to do what they do. I can imagine that they must have had heated debates with people in the message and I have nothing against good debates, good, healthy, fair debates. So what I'm saying today is not against those people who made these websites and put these things out online. I'm not saying it to be against them or to be against any other ministries in the message. I'm merely trying to bring light to the young people and families who've reached out to me who are confused and who are hurting and who uh have asked for help. So I don't aim to convince you. I believe that and it's something I've repeated consistently to our church is that if you are convinced into something, you can be convinced out of it by a stronger argument or some other kind of attractive explanation. So I do not want to convince you. I aim to appeal to your faith by pointing out the truth and giving you as much of it as I can to help you make a better choice in choosing to accept or reject the message. Ultimately, it's going to be your choice. Some of the things I'm going to say today, you might not like, you might not be expecting. Um, and um, some of you might think, well, I'm citing with some of the things that believe the sign or uh, somebody whoever it is have said. I don't even know, right? Some of the things I've read, I've uh, I agree because I've seen things in churches where I've seen them misuse the message. So, which I disagree with. So, if they said that, I'm going to agree with that. but where they say things that you know is grossly out of proportion. Well, of course, I'm going to disagree with that. So, I want to begin uh by sharing a scripture. That's our scripture reading for today. And I'm going to um share with you uh the our first scripture. I hope you can see this. It is John 8:43. Scripture Reading: John 8:43 (Why speech is misunderstood). And it says, "Why do you not understand my speech even because you cannot hear my word?" Why do you not understand my speech even because? So in other words, the reason is because you cannot hear my word. Amen. So what does this scripture even mean? Right? It simply means why do you not understand my speech? you misinterpret what I am saying because you have no revelation of my word. So these are the words of Christ and he's speaking to the Pharisees. He's saying to them, you're not understanding what I am saying because you have no revelation of my word. Right? So this is such a simple concept because if you read the message and you do not have revelation of what is being said, you are not going to understand the words. You are going to misconstrue everything in there. And and that's just common sense. You can you can apply that to any literature in the world. So with that being said, I want to say to you and especially to young people, everything that you believe in the message in the Bible is going to be disproved by people. Everything you believe in the message is going to be disproved by people who fall away from the message. And this is the secret. Some of this God has allowed the same way he allowed Pharaoh to be there. He, the Bible says he ordained Pharaoh um to basically be the one to make things uncomfortable so that they could get out of Egypt because they were too comfortable there. Right? And the Bible literally says it in a way that God ordained Pharaoh. He raised him up for this purpose. And it doesn't mean that God made him that way, but God knew his character. So God allowed it to happen for him to persecute the elect so that they so that they could get out of that comfort zone they were in. So and listen, I'm not calling these people pharaohs. I'm just giving you an example. I don't mean that to be insulting. So the favorite starting point for people in the message obviously it's going to be the prophet which means you as a person have to be sure of the prophet. So there's our starting point right being sure of the prophet. How can you be sure of the prophet? Okay so here's some common sense questions. Did you see the miracles done by brother Brandham? Were you there with brother Brandham? Were you there when the cloud appeared? Can you prove that all things that brother Brandham said were true or not in terms of healings, miracles, discernment? No. You cannot prove a single thing. So hearing things that disprove the prophet's miracles, life stories, testimonies should not even hinder or affect you because signs and wonders are not and never have been our absolute. Okay, let's hold that thought. If miracles, signs and wonders are your absolute then you will be deceived by every TB Joshua of the world. Okay. One of the first claims is that brother Benham cannot be Malachi 4. He cannot be Elijah. So I've heard this. So I'm I'm responding to what the young people sent to me and what people sent to me and say this is what was said by these people. What you know, aren't they right? So, brother Brandham cannot be Elijah. He cannot be Malachi 4. That's a lie Is William Branham Malachi 4? The Jesus/John the Baptist parallel. because Jesus said that John was Elijah. Is this true? Right. So, here's the scripture that they quote. Let's share that. Uh, this is Matthew 11 verse 13-4. And this is the Lord Jesus saying, "For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John." Now, I've I've heard some of them say, "Therefore, after John, there are no more prophets." Paul was an apostle. All the prophets finished up until John. Therefore, there are no more prophets. And then verse 14, Christ says, "And if you will receive it, this is Elias or Elijah." In the New Testament, Elijah is written as Elias. Right? So if you will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come. In other words, Christ is identifying John the Baptist as Elias. Now you have the scripture. What do we do with this? So it seems like these people are right. Right? The Lord Jesus seems to say that all the prophets were finished with John. He also identifies John as Elijah as if there was no more Elijah to come. Of course, we have an explanation for this, those of us who are in the message. And you cannot debate this with anybody who doesn't believe this unless you yourself are sure that the spirit of Elijah was upon the prophet. Okay? But if even if you are debating with somebody who doesn't believe the message, they're going to say to you, there you go. This is typical message brainwashing. Okay? So, I'm going to show you um what the internet says about Elijah. Okay? And this is this is what I'm doing for people, young people in the message, and you can also check this out for yourself. All right? So this is the A list of "Internet Elijahs" and the true test of an Elijah ministry. internet if you Google uh what who claims to be Elijah and all those people that claims to be Elijah right so here are some of the names Mong Moon Herbert Armstrong Alexander Dawi Joseph Smith William Brham Elizabeth Nikcomia Louis Farrakhan or Lewis Farrakhan and Benny Hinn so these These are just eight people among many who have claimed that they are the Elijah or that they are the one prophesied to be Elijah in this last day. And there are many more. So you can research all these people yourself if you want to. I'm just giving you eight people. But I want you to ask yourself this question. Like I said, I'm just giving you uh the truth. And here is William Brandham's name among many other people in the same kind of time zone that he was. And people who all claimed to be the Elijah of the last day, right? But I want you to ask yourself which one of them, one of these people identified the Ahab of this day. The prophet identified the Ahab as Pentecostalism. Which one of them condemned and prophesied um the death of Jezebel of this day? That is the Roman Catholic system. Which one of them saw a cloud the size of a man's hand and prophesied that rain was coming? Which one of them was a wilderness man, uneducated, rough around the edges? And all of them, of all of them, which one is deemed as the greatest threat with the greatest amount of resistance against them? It's only one of them, right? There may be many fakes, but there is only one genuine ministry. Now, you might say, "Well, you're saying that because you're biased." and and probably yes because I believe that he was the Elijah or one with the Elijah ministry in this day. And so that's still not a good enough argument. So I'm not, like I said, I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just trying to say to you, what is an Elijah ministry supposed to do? If you go back to Elijah, he is the one who identifies Ahab. He identifies Jezebel. He comes at a time where there is drought and there is famine and he prophesies of the rain coming. He brings prophecy that is bringing judgment to Jezebel. Go and have a look at all these other so-called Elijah and see what they are doing and and what their ministries are producing. So even if you get a small percentage of what it is that this message is actually doing, if you don't, you're missing it, right? You're not seeing what the message is doing. It is absolutely exposing Ahab, Jezebel showing uh and in it all you see even an Elisha ministry coming up taking up the mantle. You also see names under that ministry that were not revealed to Elijah. Other names who were hidden under a seal that would be broken and uh who have not bowed the knee to Baal. You see all of this right in this particular ministry. So anyway, let's move on. So however, I would say that still won't prove anything to the naysayers. Now then you have brother Adam himself make some crazy statements, some crazy sounding statements. And this is one among many, right? which just gets people all knotted up and they don't know what to think of it. And why do they not understand his words, okay? Because they don't have revelation of his words. So let's go to trying to do God a service without it being his will. So I'm going to share that on the screen for you. Okay. Trying to do God a service. Now look at this quote. Paragraph 212. Now, Addressing the "Elijah is the Lord Jesus Christ" statement. he promised that. So, that sets the Bible just exactly to this day. And Sodom and Gomorrah and Elijah was not that wasn't Elijah. That was the spirit of God on Elijah. Elijah was just a man. Now, we've had Elijah's. So, this is brother saying in his day, he they've already had Elijah's. What he's saying now is you've had Elijah's. So this section here where he says we've had Elijah's he mean there have he means there has been there had been people who men and women who had claimed to be Elijah in his day. Then you had movements that were called like Elijah's coats and Elijah's mantels and Elijah's everything. That means in brother man's day there were people who are already claiming to be Elijah. But look at the statement. But the Elijah of this day is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is to come according to Matthew 17 or Luke 17:30 says um the son of man is to reveal himself among his people not a man god. Okay. So, I know this. Um, I've actually had conversation with a young man who said to me, "Look, he's saying Elijah is the Lord Jesus Christ and then he says he is Elijah, therefore he's saying he is Jesus Christ, right?" And you can see how people can be confused with the way the prophet is. You don't blame them, right? And uh so basically if he's saying Elijah is Christ and we know Christ is God and if William Brandham is Elijah and we are all saying William Brandom is Elijah and now he's saying Elijah is Christ. Therefore we are saying William Brandham is God and everybody knows you know among us none of us are saying he's God. We don't worship him. We don't bow down to him. We don't pray in his name. So, but you have to admit these statements look so confusing to people who are reading it at face value who don't even understand or have any revelation of his words. Right? Why do you not understand my speech even because you cannot hear my word? Yet we know how that Moses and Elijah are Old Testament ministries of Christ because we know from Zechariah's vision the two olive trees standing beside the go the golden candlestick are Old Testament types of Christ. So this really doesn't stumble us. I'm just showing you why people say what they say. Okay, let's go to another quote here from trying to do God a service. Believe me, we could go through all these quotes in scriptures and explain it to you. We're going to have a service about each one of them and by the end of it, you'll be whooping and jumping and shouting and screaming and saying, "Hallelujah. Praise the Lord." But these are things that stumble other people who don't have the revelation that you and I have or and they would just say, "Well, you don't have revelation. You're just brainwashed." Okay. Trying to do God service. Paragraph 28. He says, "But it's so hard. It used it used to bother me so bad." Then I found out even our Lord was misunderstood in so many things. He'd say anything and they'd be misunderstood. I guess it just has to be that way. But those who are wise will understand. The Bible said so they'll catch it. Okay? So this is true. To understand all of this, you have to go back to the ministry of of the Lord Jesus Christ and John the Baptist. So let's see if all the things they're accusing William Brandom of hasn't happened before in the time of John and Christ. So that's where I want to go to today in today's service. I want you to see that everything that's being done, all the accusations brought against William Brandom, they were actually brought against John and Christ. John the Baptist and Christ. So I want you to go to go with me to John 1 verse 19- 24. And I'm going to share that on the screen for you. Okay. John the Baptist, right? Was he Elias or John 1:19: Why John the Baptist denied being Elijah. not? John 1:19:24. And this is the record of John when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, "Who art thou?" So the Jewish people, their their ministry of that day, the church of that day. Here comes this ruffian, you know, preaching in the river and uh baptizing people uh in God's name and asking them to come to repentance. and he's not working with the Levites. He's not working with the church. And so the Levites feel, hey, we have an obligation to go and ask him what's up, man. You know, who are you? What's going on? Whose name are you doing all this? And what authority do you have? So, who art thou? Right? Verse 20. And he confessed and denied not, but confessed, I am not the Christ. So, he identified himself and said, I am not the Christ. So John the Baptist is saying I am not the Messiah. Then verse 21, they asked him, "What then? Are you Elias?" In other words, are you Elijah? And he said, "I am not." And they asked, "Art thou that prophet?" He said, "No." Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us, "What sayest thou of thyself?" And he said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaiah. They were sent, and they which were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptize thou then? If you're not that Christ nor Elias, neither that prophet, why are you baptizing? What right do you have to this ministry? If you are not Elijah, you're not Messiah, you're not that prophet we're expecting, right? So, what I want to draw your attention to is uh during Christ's ministry, we just read the scripture a little way above. Christ said this is Elias and when John is asked are you Elias he said no okay and this is exactly what brother Bham also did right so during his ministry during Christ's ministry uh and this is this is important for you to understand Christ was rejected for his word right but he was widely acknowledged for his divine divine healing and discernment. Okay. So, we earlier confirmed that Christ said John the Baptist is Elijah. You all agree? But John the Baptist was not accepted as Elijah in his day. And we we're going to come to it now where people have argued about what Malachi 4:5 and 6 is. So, we'll get to that. So in his day, John the Baptist who people who have now left the message are saying, "Brother Bam lied. He's not Malachi 45 and 6." John the Baptist was in Malachi 45 and 6. And yet here is John in the scripture saying, "I'm not Elijah." Right? So uh who was he then? He identifies himself. I'm one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord. In other words, prepare the way of the Messiah. His duty, he knew, was to set the way for Christ. He knew it. He had a revelation of what he was supposed to do. But he could not prove it. And he was persecuted for not being able to prove it. And he died for it. Amen. That's the truth. Okay, let's go to another quote, another scripture I'm going to share with you. Right. We're got to set this up before we get to all the meaty sections. This is things people made up of Christ's Why the crowds loved the first two pulls but hated the Third Pull (The Word). ministry. Luke chapter 9 6-9. And they departed and went through the towns and preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him. So Christ disciples gone and healing and doing great miracles everywhere. And Herod who was king of Israel at the time, the tetra, he heard of all these great wonders, right? And and this is now after Herod had beheaded John the Baptist. Now Herod is is hearing of this and he was perplexed because that it was said of some that John that is John the Baptist was risen from the dead. Now we know Herod's story. He he hated John the Baptist because John was like the spirit of Elijah bringing judgment to another Ahab in his day, right? And um then there were some people verse 8 says and some of them that Eli some said that Elias had appeared. Now who were they talking about? They were talking about Jesus Christ. There were people who had been hearing Jesus Christ and saying Elijah has come. So some of them were identifying Jesus as Elijah and of others that one of the old prophets was risen again. Who know like Moses or somebody. So in other words, there were people all around Christ who were identifying him differently. Now we know this because when Jesus asked the disciples in Matthew 16, whom do men say that I am? And they said some say you are this, some say you are that some say. So we know this was the condition of things in Christ's day. Nobody could identify John the Baptist. Nobody could identify the Lord Jesus Christ. And these both these men, John the Baptist and Christ made it extremely difficult for these people to even identify them. They just never gave straight answers. So it's the same thing here today. People would be like, "Why can't brother Bam just say this? Why can't he just say that? Why didn't he just say this? You just shut up all the naysayers. No, this is congruent with scriptures people. Okay. And Herod said, "John have I beheaded, but who is this of whom I hear such things?" And he desired to see him. Okay? So once again, during Christ's ministry, Christ was rejected for his word, but he was widely acknowledged for his divine healing and discernment. Is that right? What am I saying? Christ's three pools. First and second pool, the people loved him, didn't they? The people loved the healing. They loved the the discernment. They were flocking to come to him to be fed of the five lo and two fishes and be healed of leprosy and all kinds of things. People loved that that they were coming in droves and great numbers. But when he spoke the word, they were rejecting him. Right? The crowds loved him for the healings and the miracles and the discernments. And when Jesus began his third pull, what was his third pull ministry? Eat my flesh, drink my blood. Your fathers desired the bread from the wilderness which perishes. But this, eat my flesh, the bleeding body word of the son of man, and they turned away. Now watch what happens when he was drawing attention to the son of man ministry and said things like eat my flesh, drink my blood, the 70 disciples left him. And even the crowds who crossed the Sea of Galilee to come and ask him to feed them, they all left him calling him a false prophet, a false teacher. And when he asked the disciples, they didn't say, uh, you know, he turns to ask Peter and the disciples said, "Will you leave me too?" Watch what they said. They didn't say, "Uh, Lord, where are we going to go to?" You know, you're the one with all the miracles and the discernment and the and the the uh great testimonies. They said, "No, Lord, whom shall we go to? For you have the words of eternal life." That means when it comes to the third pole ministry, the bride of Christ is looking for the word, not the miracles, not the discernment, not the first and second polls. If you're looking for those things, you're going to have people who are going to copy those things, who are going to mess those things up, who are bring going to bring shame to those things, and right now going to disprove many of those miracles and discernments that were uh manifested in that time. So this shows us that the elect was always attracted to the word and not the first and second polls. Do you agree? All right. So now let's get to that's our foundation. Now we want to get to the accusations against the prophet. Now I'm going to share this uh with you. The 4 Types of Accusations: Homosexuality, Failed Prophecy, Failed Men, and the Cloud. Um here we go. So there are basically four types of accusations. Uh there are probably hundreds. I don't even know. Right. If they if these people have a website dedicated to investigating the life of William Brandham, the people around him, his family and his friends and I can imagine there must be thousands of things. But there are four types of accusations that I want to focus on because these are the things that have been brought to me. Okay, so these are the types of accusations. Number one, William Brham is accused of having homosexuals working for him and uh also among that like um immoral people. Number two, there are a whole lot of failed prophecies and thus sayeth the Lord's and stories that he told with no proof or that they were inconsistent or something like that. Number three, brother Brandham or William Brandham was proven false because of the number of failed men in this message. And number four, of course, the favorite, the cloud of 1963. Okay, now let's talk about it. Let's go to um uh and explain what this really is. And I'm going to go through each accusation uh each type of accusation. All right. So all the accusers of William Brham that I have come across and who have spoken to me personally that's what I'm addressing right who were inspired by and they by their own admission believe the sign seek ye the truth and they claim that. So here's what they claim because now like I asked them like some of them are like friends and I'm saying to them listen it's okay if you don't believe you know what I I'm still your brother I you're my brother I will hug you I'll meet you I'll greet you I'll I'll have coffee with you and we can have dinner together. I don't care because I can do that with anybody. I am I'm not afraid of you. You shouldn't be afraid of me. We shouldn't have any bad blood. you leaving the message. It's okay, you know, but why the hate? Why the attack? You know, I'm giving you love. Why do you need to attack me or somebody? I I just don't get this, you know. So, um, they claim their responsibility is to expose a false prophet and get the people back to believing only the Bible and Christ. Okay? I've literally heard these words that that's what they're doing. So I like I have like human conversation with them and I'm saying listen just leave it. Just go and live your life. Go find a better church that you feel is a better fit for you. Go dress how you want to do what you want. Just find happiness. You know, just leave this obsession alone and it's not worth it. just go enjoy yourself, right? Go and and be who you want to be. Forget about the people. No, no. They zero in. They focus. They make it an obsession because they feel it's their responsibility to expose a false prophet and get the people back to believing the Bible and Christ. So, in speaking with them, what I found was a massive gap of ignorance. Okay. uh indoctrination definitely from the sites because when I would speak to them I would hear exactly the same thing that I heard from another person like almost word for word like and the same arguments and I hear from this guy and the same thing from that guy and they're quoting the exact same thing as if they read it somewhere. Now I know this because I hear the same thing when I speak to 7day Adventist or Jehovah's Witness or and I can just hear indoctrination and they'll spew back exactly the same things. So when they do that, I just know exactly where to go to it. It's so easy, right? So why I say um uh ignorance and obsession and then I realized that uh with with a lot of them, I would say most of them. Now remember this is not the people who created the sites and people who started these things. I'm talking about people influenced by them. people some of them who are friends who are people I knew in the message for many years and uh what I found is that many of them The Role of Hurt: How church abuse fuels the anti-Message movement. are have this obsession because they are fueled by hurt they've been hurt by people in the message by pastors in the message by churches they've been many of them I would say I I would even agree were unfairly treated they could have been treated in a better way And I don't think it's the message that did that because I from everything I know of brother Brandham I've never seen him treat people that way. I you know when I say seen I I hear in in the messages how he treats people how he speaks to them and the respect that he has. So obviously there are people in the message, ministers, church people or whatever and they go and do stuff with people that and hurt them and and and who are um not cognizant of people's feelings when they speak to them. Right? So when it comes to hurt and pride, there is much to be said. I could tell you individual cases I know of, but the truth is people are very often mishandled by message churches and unjustly treated by pastors. This is why I'm saying when I hear some things spoken of by uh believe the sign or something, I agree with it. When they say some, you know, there's cultish behavior, I agree. There are definitely some churches who are without a doubt just cults. cult in their actions. Cult in the way they teach teach their people control their people. They control their people to the point of you can't paint your house a different color unless you consult with the pastor first. It's ridiculous. You can't buy a car without asking him which car to buy. You can't handle your own finances without him advising you how to handle your finances. You know, I don't have the time for things like that. Just go paint your house whatever color you want. Choose whatever car you want to waste your money the way you want to. I'm going to be happy for you because it's your choice. If you want my advice, I ask you. But I'm telling you, I've seen churches where this is done and it's just craziness. So, I agree with them. These people are often these hurt people who were left the message were often demonized by church members. They were shamed publicly or they were, you know, they were excommunicated and they used the the the saying treat them as heathens and publicans and then it means like you cannot even speak to them. Don't pray for them. Don't talk to them. If you meet them on the street, walk the other way. And this is not the Bible because you don't treat heathens and publicans that way. Heathens and publicans you meet at the mall, you say, "Hey, good morning. How you doing?" you know, and how and nice weather today and how's your child? You know, we spoke about that a lot. That's how you treat heathens and publicans. But now when you meet someone who is excommunicated, you treat them like vermin or like they have leprosy because you handed them over to the devil. I don't understand those things. So, and I agree. When people are treated that way, it's just plain out wrong. To the best of my knowledge, these things are inspired by culture and a desire that men have to control other people because they are building up their own ministries. That is not the message. Okay? There is also a lot of elitism in the message. Even in using the term of the term the bride of Christ, when you use the term the bride of Christ, it should be spoken with humility. And often times it's spoken without humility as if we are elite people that just deserve to sit around in our chairs, you know, waiting to be served. Listen saints, though we are the bride of Christ, we are servants of Christ. We should not have the mindset of being uh, you know, judges who walk around condemning everybody. Rather, you should have the mindset of being saviors who judge with truth and honor, not being people who preach condemnation upon everyone and nothing upon ourselves. That is not the message. That is not the way the prophet preached and not congruent with the spirit of Christ. This is the truth. However, I must say on behalf of the church, I will say there are there are scores of honest, good intentioned, good intentioned message people who just want to protect their children or the church from unrighteous miscreants. Let's face it, in some churches we just get misreants. We get people who just want to come there for a free ride. You know, they and you know, any church has these elements in them. They just dare to they want money from you. They want to mess around and they want you to to forgive them for everything that they're up and down, up and down. And of course, there are these people who are taking advantage of our good graces. I'm not talking about those people. Those people are at their core rebellious people. but through making oppressive rules and judging unfairly and swiping everybody with a broad brush. This is the truth that many a goodhearted sincere backslider has been severely injured by church tradition. Let's just say it as it is. Coming back to those who have left the message, I mentioned ignorance because remember in the beginning when I said I saw a massive gap of this ignorance because they just read what they get on believe the sign, seek you the truth, whatever it is, whatever they watched or or read, they just look at that and they are influenced by it and they themselves don't go and read the message, the context of things the prophet said. They don't even see the theme of the message. They don't even see they don't even go back and read church history for themselves. And a result of reading one antibrandom website and not properly studying history and especially church history and all the accusations made against William Brham. What they don't realize when they are doing what they're doing is almost every single accusation Comparing accusations against Branham with accusations against Christ and the Apostles. made against William Brham are accusations that have been brought against Christ, John the Baptist and the disciples or the apostles and the disciples and apostles were killed, beheaded, martyed, right? And even later to this day there are atheists, agnostics, there are all kinds of people who bring accusations against Christ, John the Baptist and the apostles. Right? Because there are accusations made against the Bible, against Jesus Christ, against the apostles, does it mean that because there are scores of anti-Christian, anti-religion historians, scientists, researchers who who have published proofs who have brought historical documents, witness statements to state their claims against the Bible, against those who compile the Bible. against many of the people in church history. Does it mean the Bible is false? Does it mean Christ is false? Does it mean John the Baptist and the disciples were frauds just because these accusations were made against them and were brought with proofs because this is what's been done to the prophet. Right? Remember, I'm not convincing you. I'm asking you to see the truth. According to the standards that these people who are accusing the brother Benham according to the standards they use to judge the prophet. If the same standard is used to judge Christ then Christ would be false. Then John the Baptist would be false. Then the disciples would be false. Then the entire New Testament would be false. There would be inconsistencies. There'd be discrepancies. There'd be things Paul said that doesn't agree with James. There'd be things here that is said that doesn't agree with that. Go search the internet. You will find websites upon websites of discrepancies in the Bible. These things have already been done over 2,000 years to discredit Jesus Christ and the disciples. So, here's what's probably going to happen. A lot of these people who leave the message are eventually going to leave Christ altogether. I'm saying this because I've already seen it happen. Okay? They just eventually give up completely on um being a believer in God altogether. So yet these message haters, what they don't see about how foolish they look by claiming to defend the Bible from the message when the Bible has already been viferously disgraced by many historians and ex-Christians. In fact, you'll find places where you you might find people why I left Christianity. So when you get YouTube videos why I left the message for every one of those there are another 10 or 100 why I left Christianity what does that prove right in fact the message doesn't even attempt to circumvent the Bible we are the message people are not trying to get people not to believe the Bible but there are people on YouTube and other places trying to get people not to believe the Bible message people actually want to make people Christians. Message people actually want to make people believe in in the Lord Jesus Christ and salvation for sins. We are not even trying to circumvent the Bible. And yet we have people who leave the message trying to make us look like we are trying to take things away from Christ and make William Brandon more important. They've missed the boat. That's the truth. In fact, um the message, you know, one of the most surprising things is the Bible was actually protected by the Catholic Church through all the politics and violence and for all that they said against the Catholic Church, they were one of the one of the denominations that really protected the Bible. Okay, so let's get to the first accusation. All right, the first accusation. And now the these are the things I mentioned on the on the group where I said they're maybe inappropriate for your younger teenagers or who haven't heard these things. And I'm going to mention some names here because these are mentioned. It's it's become public knowledge. So there's this accusation that these two men who are mentioned in the message, brother Gene and brother Lee, that brother Brandham called them his in in inverted commas his tape boys. And there's a lot being said. There's there's like insinuations made because he mentioned those words. Uh they say he created this recording studio called the park. I know I don't know. I haven't read it myself. I'm just telling what's being told to me. In which there's apparently many unlawful documented sexual acts were committed. I have no knowledge of this to whether this is true. So, were these men homosexuals at the time when they worked with brother Bam? I don't know. Did the prophet know this? I don't know. Was he meant to know this? Who knows? Apparently, brother Lee Vale, who brother Maram said was a teacher of the message, made these statements as a fact. In other words, he said them that they were a fact. There's a message he preached on the 1st of July 2000. It was Godhead part 11 by brother Levale where he made these statements and apparently he also said that one of brother Brandham's managers K ferry von Bloomberg was also gay. Uh he said another manager brother Ernie Baxter was a womanizer and even got drunk on brother Brandham's India trip. So we who claim to be in the message, we have people in the message who claim to be in the message releasing these statements to the world of William Brandham haters. So bear in mind these accusations came up after brother Brandham is gone to discredit either those people or his ministry. like why did these people not bring it up in the day when they were with brother Brandham right okay so these accusations are made about the prophet I have no way of checking this or knowing this even the accusers have no way because these people are all dead and gone there's no way to even know how much of credence there is to it let's take this to the time of Christ okay so this is what I want to show young people if you're saying oh my goodness how good brother man these people and whatever. Okay, here's the accusations against Christ. I have read excerpts and books of writers from I've been in this message all my life. I read books. You see behind me, these are books. I read books. I don't spend my time online. And so, by the way, so I try to even check for some of the books that I've read in the past. I cannot even find them. I I try to do this even with AI as the little knowledge that I have. and and basically the AI is telling me the things I am saying are anti-Semitic because I'm trying to look for accusation the Jews made against uh Christ and my goodness I I don't even think that AI would say I'm anti-Semitic. So, but that's what it is. So, some of the material and the books that I know I've read I've picked them up from shelves in the past. They don't even want to put them online anymore. So, they used to be online. And I remember 2014 2015 they were online and there were excerpts from but it's like you can't even find them anymore. But anyway, I've read uh excerpts and and and books of writers who say that some of the Jews during that time claimed that and accused John the Baptist and Jesus Christ of being homosexuals themselves especially because they didn't take wives and uh they didn't claim to be unics because if you didn't take a wife it was acceptable in society but you had to claim to be a unic you have to prove yourself to be a unic And so they didn't like the fact that Jesus Christ and because look all the priests had wives and they had children to show that they were not weird, right? And so here's John the Baptist and Christ not taking wives. And then some of them accused uh or or them after they had already died to discredit their ministry because in Jewish society homosexuality was taboo. Uh Jesus was disrespected for claiming to be a rabbi and letting a prostitute woman touch his feet. My point is if you're saying why did brother Bam have all these people, why did Christ let a prostitute woman touch his feet? Right? Why did he go and speak to a prostitute woman in the street when it was against the law at that time? Why did he have uh or sit with the publicans and the wine bibbers? Why did he have all these discredited, unworthy people around him all the time? Like to me, this argument is is really very stupid. Right? So there's a a very odd scripture um uh which really kind of lacks context in Mark 14:51- 52 when they were coming to arrest Christ. It says a young man who followed Jesus and the disciples and that he was always like naked and he just wrapped a cloth around himself to cover his nakedness and that when they came to arrest Jesus and they tried to grab this young man thinking he was part of this party that he just dropped his robe and ran off naked. Right. And um the the excerpts I read suggested that he might have been homosexual. This is why he set apart from uh the group because he was homosexual and the words were he was a soft boy or in the Greek an epheminate which in that time meant he was homosexual right and that is the reason why he didn't sit among the group because he sat away but he was really interested in what u Jesus was saying and he was attracted to the words of Christ and so there was accusations now brought to Christ. Look, you have someone following you who's a soft boy. He's homosexual. Um, so I've read a book called The Bible Fraud many years ago in which Europeans say that Jesus had an affair with Mary Magdalene and he had children through her, right? And that's why he loved her. Um, there's also accusations made to say, you know, well, Jesus uh loved John and John lay on his breast and therefore there's that there was some hint of homosexual behavior there. These are actually things that were said against Christ. I'm saying to you things that are brought against William Brham, they're not new. They were they were things that were brought against Christ, John the Baptist and the disciples. There in this book, the Bible fraud, the kings of England, France, and Italy, Addressing claims of "Bible Fraud" and the LGBTQ advocates' view of Christ. and even Germany claimed to be in the lineage of Christ. And this book claims that Jesus Christ and his mother Mary were of some kind of royal line and they could trace it back to the Celtic royal bloodline. And this is actually written materials. I read this book. I've seen the excerpts. I've seen the detail on the research and uh pottery and paintings and carvings and all kinds of things of proof that they have that Jesus Christ was not who he said he was and he was actually there was actually another story behind it. So in this modern age, the common argument that you are going to see, you young people today are going to see online is if homosexuality is wrong, then why didn't Jesus Christ come out and condemn it outright? There isn't a single scripture where he says he speaks against homosexuality. In fact, Christian LGBTQ advocates claim that Jesus Christ may actually have been queer because he chose not to marry and because it was not acceptable in that time uh uh because he was queer. So, he just chose not to to be married. And now they also accuse people who say that Christ might have been married because of their arguments to try and normalize Christ. Is there truth to any of these things? Listen, this is like basically bashing Christianity. If you're going to go this far to accept accusations like that, baseless, stupid accusations against the prophet and against men who were around the prophet, well, there's a lot to go around. There's a lot of accusations made against Jesus Christ, the disciples, John the Baptist. Go read the history. It's already been done. What's being done now is stale news. Okay? That's what I'm telling you. Um, in that time of Christ, was their sexuality of society like that in the time of Christ? It was terrible because Christ lived in what was called the Greco Roman period or under their influence. And we know that the Bible tells us that Jesus, the Bible tells us Jesus was tempted on all points as a man. So for certain there must have been those around him that could have been questionable. There must have been women who tried to proposition Jesus Christ. There might have been men who who tried to proposition Jesus Christ. There might have been people who watched him talk to a woman or talk to a woman who was trying to flirt with him or a man who was trying to flirt with him. This was Greco Roman society at the time. There must have been many stories going around. Why is he he's 30 years old. He's in his father's house. Why is he not getting married? There must have been many things that went on. Does that prove that Jesus word was wrong? That's your choice. The Bible doesn't even give any of these details. What is your response to these people who leave the message, who bring these accusations? That's not in the Bible. So, we don't accept it. All right? Is that is that your is that is that the response? That's not in the Bible. So we So what what happens is and I've done this when I tell this to those people who have left the message. It's like you're doing this to Jesus Christ. You're comparing you're comparing uh you're comparing our Christ to William Brandham. You're trying to make what? I'm not even doing that. Stop making stupid comparisons. I'm not even doing that. I'm just saying to you the same accusations you bring against William Brandom have been brought against Christ. So how do you refute that? Look at these documents. Look at these excerpts. Look at what's been said. And then you watch them. They will tell us now if you try to defend William Brandham and you use certain things in certain ways and certain phrases, you start to see them trying to defend Christ in exactly the same way. It's just hypocrisy. Right? So I don't get the point of this argument. whether the prophet had people around him who have strange or questionable sexual orientation. To me, it's a very stupid argument. It does not at all discredit the word that was preached. I would expect that brother Baram could have had many questionable people around him, all kinds of people in churches and he might have himself made very questionable decisions about marriages, about people because they that would be congruent with all the prophets in the Bible. They were not meant to do anything else but be vessels to deliver God's word. Go back and check the Bible. The greatest problems to the prophet Samuel were his own sons, their own family. People are Does that discredit Samuel? Does that discredit who he was, his person or the word that he brought? No, it doesn't. Right? So to me, when you bring those accusations, that's a little bit immature. Right? Be be better. Okay. The second accusation is failed prophecies and thus said the Lord's stories with no proof. Okay. anti-brandom researchers will not stop spending time seeking our prophecies of brother Brandham to I mean there's there's probably tens of hundreds I don't know in the message if you could go through it scrutinize each thing because you had the ability because voice of God recordings put it out there so you have a treasure trove of places to go and research and find fault with everything you can't do that with Paul you can't do that with any other minister because nobody else in the history of the Bible has had his work over decades, two or three decades uh recorded in both audio and word for you to scrutinize. Not even Jesus Christ, not even every sermon Jesus Christ preached. Do you have in tape and book form to scrutinize and check? Was there discrepancy here? Was there discrepancy there? Did he say this this way? There did he say the same story there? this way. You don't have this with anybody else in the history of the church, but you have this with this humble Kentucky and he's like, you know, he's like got hooks on him with bait and there you go. Cob boy seek. That's what's happening. So, uh, another is brother Billy Paul's testimony of what Brother Billy Paul and the "sharks swimming" testimony. brother Baron said about shark swimming where he's standing before he was an old man. When brother Billy Paul died, I had people reaching out to me. Brother Alice, is the rapture going to take place now? Like what's going to happen? And you know, uh, was brother Benham false here? I just want to say this with due respect to brother Billy Paul. That account is not in the message. It's not anywhere in the books or in the tapes what brother Benham said to brother Billy Paul. It's brother Billy Paul's testimony, his own personal testimony. And with due respect to him, when we know how the prophet speaks, we just don't know what God showed the prophet and what context it was when he spoke about that. We just don't know it. And we cannot even place any faith in it because it wasn't told to us. It was told to him. Who knows why it was told to him like it had to give him incentive to do something in his life. It was for him. It was not for us. It was not for you and I to say, "Oh, California is going to sink before brother Billy Paul dies." No, it didn't say that, right? So, that's just simply the truth. Claimed healings of people who were sick and died after brother Maramon proclaimed them healed. We don't know any of this. We can't we can't uh corroborate. We don't have any evidence. We can't go and say, "Well, of course, they were healed because brother Madam said so." Listen, those people could have taken it back. Those people could could have told brother Brandham, "Thank you, brother Brandon. We were healed. 20 days later, they were not healed and they feel dejected." And he told so many of them, "Go believing. Your faith makes you whole." You know, just like how Christ told the people. And when he preached demonology, he says, "The same faith that took it away. If you if you disbelieve, unbelief brings it back again." Listen, I'm not even going to defend that. Defend him there. So, historians and atheists did the same things to Christ. Where I'm going to ask you now, where are the proofs of the healings that Christ did? Where is the proof, the empirical proof of feeding 5,000 with two loaves and five fishes? where all we have is the disciples word that was written and passed down through generations. If you apply the same standard you are criticizing William Brandham with then you must apply the same standard with the Lord Jesus Christ. Why must you have total faith in what Jesus Christ and the Bible says and you cannot have faith in these things that the prophet has said. What's the difference? You have the ability in this time to go back and interview people and check this and check this. But you cannot do that with Christ. Which is what happens when you speak to atheists, they ask you where's the proof? And you have no proof. So these same people leaving the message. When atheists and other people ask you, "Where's the proof of Jesus Christ?" You can't answer. You're being a hypocrite. You can't answer. And you saying, "Well, we believe it by faith." You've got to have faith. So I have faith in the message of the prophet, and I don't need to prove anything to anybody. That's the truth. So, there were reliable historians. Here's the thing. There were reliable historians in the time of Christ like Josephus and Tacitus, the Roman historian. Why aren't their accounts in the writings of Josephus and Tacitus uh about all the miracles and the healings that Christ did? Why do they not corroborate what is written in the Gospels? Shouldn't there have been historians around uh corroborating all the evidence if it made such a big stir? Right? Whose word should we believe? Should we believe the historians or should we believe the disciples who were devoted to Christ and who could possibly have made up everything? Because this is what they're saying we did with William Brandom. Here is one of the favorites, right? According to them, none of the prophecies in Matthew 24 have come to pass. It's been 2,000 years. Right? Let me show you the accusation made against Christ. All right, let's share this. It's phenomenal, people. All right. I still hear Christians and message be people struggle with this today. Matthew 24:34, The "Failed Prophecy" of Matthew 24:34. "Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." When the Bible says that heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away, he means that everything I told you is 100% the truth, right? So, we all know Matthew 24, right, from the beginning. false Christ shall arise and shall deceive many and so on and so on. There's going to be the abomination and make it desolation and all the there's beams famines and wars and the trumpets and this and that. And he said comes to verse 34 and said this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled. And here's the problem. Historians and people who criticize Christ say that all those things did not come to pass and that generation had died. Therefore, Christ is a false prophet. Right? So verse 35, he is emphasizing heaven and earth shall pass away but my words in other words my words can never fail. Right? And how many times do I do I hear people when they're praying Lord you said heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall never pass away. Your words never fail, Lord. Hallelujah. Glory to God. But here you have people who criticize the Lord Jesus Christ. So let me tell you, the Bible even tells you that even the disciples believed this that all these things that Christ spoke of in Matthew 24 were going to happen in their day. That's why they believed the second coming was going to happen in their day. Some believe that John John the divine the revelator might be the one who survived to see the coming but he died and then Jesus Christ hadn't come the second time. They claim brother Brandham is false because so many of his prophecy didn't come to pass. These same people cannot explain the scripture to me. Matthew 24:34-35 they cannot explain it. They have no explanation. I had one guy tell me, "No, no, no, no. It's related to the fig tree. Therefore, the generation he said this generation shall not pass is when the fig tree is budding. And it was 1949 when Israel became a nation. That's the generation. And then I said to him, hey, hold on a second. That generation has already passed. Have all these things happened now? Because he's speaking of this generation, this generation of the fig tree. So that generation has passed. Another generation has passed. And here we are and all these things have not come to pass yet speechless. They cannot. Right? So do you realize that all these accusations that they're making against the prophet have been made against Christ? And and here look listen look at the comparison. Brother Bam is gone 60 years and they're calling it failed prophecy. Christ has gone 2,000 years and apparently these have not come to pass. I'm just telling you what the atheists have said. We have knowledge of the revelation of all things. We know what's come to pass and where it is. We know what the fifth trumpet is, the sixth trumpet is. We know all those things. We can explain that. How do these people who leave the message and denounce everything? Church ages, trumpets, the way the prophet preached, how do they explain this? They can't. That's the truth. They can't throw it back at them. They don't know what to say. Right? So, what about the claim? Now, here's another one. I read this in the Time magazine like it could have been in the year 2000 or something or somewhere where um something was written against the Bible and they said John chapter 17 where Jesus is praying in Gethsemane and all the disciples were sleeping. So, if all the disciples were sleeping, how could Jesus prayer have been recorded? There was nobody listening to him praying all by himself. So that means John 17 was made up and added later into it. It's so amazing because John 17 is actually the complete message of Christ the mystery of God revealed. It's phenomenal. It starts off with father glorify me now with the glory which I had before with the with thee before the world was. I mean that's like God in Christ. And then he said, "Father, I would that these be with me that that as I am with you, so they are with me and we are one." That is Christ in the bride. And then you find, "I pray for these, but not these alone, but those that should come that are none of this fault." It's just incredible. It's the entire chapter is Christ the mystery. But here you have historians and people and critics of the Bible saying it is false because if all the disciples were sleeping in Gethsemane, how could Jesus prayer have been heard? If it was all by himself, how could they have known his words? Therefore, it is made up. If you are a believer in Christ, if you're someone who read the message uh and now left the message, what is your answer to this accusation? because you're bringing the same kind of accusations against William Brandham. Some Christian historians say that there is proof that Jes proof that Jesus uh was not crucified. More unbelieving historians say there is no proof that Jesus was crucified at all. Right? But yet both Josephus and Tacitus confirmed that there was a man called Christ who was crucified. That's that's in their script. He was crucified under Pontius Pilate and Josephus confirms the existence of Christ and many amazing deeds that were done. But it is not enough for the educated world. You can't take this to an atheist and prove it. Okay. So in some of these writings like the book I told you about the Bible fraud claims that Jesus had a twin brother named Judas Crestus who was kept hidden and then was crucified in Jesus place because they were twins and then 3 days later Crestus' death Judas Crestus was his death was covered up his body was disappeared and then Jesus comes out into the open to say that he was resurrected again. So that's a story and this is the story that's been given from the world that shows how the resurrection of Jesus Christ was done. Okay? And that the the plot was Judas Crestus was the body lying in the tomb that was stolen and buried somewhere. And now if you meet somebody you people of leave who leave the message, you meet somebody who brings this material to you. Can you argue with them? No. Because you have no solid proof of the resurrection. You have no solid proof of anything that Christ did 2,000 years later. You have no proof. All we have is the word of the disciples uh who are all dead. You cannot speak to them. And uh not all of their writings even get the story exactly the same. But we believe it because we have received the Holy Ghost. We have no scientific proof or historical proof of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. All we have is just the word of the four gospels. In fact, brother Brandham himself gives us increasing faith of what the four gospels are. He's more of a man who makes us believe in the Bible than to disbelieve the Bible. That's what I don't understand about these accusations. Okay. Accusation number three, they claim brother Madam was false because of the number of failed men in this message. Many people are falling away and and supposedly they are exposed as false teachers, false preachers. Okay. So they also claim that brother Madam ordained men who later brought in false doctrines and had marriage or immoral problems. Are those things true? Yes, many of those things are true. So they say if he was a true prophet, how could he not have seen what these men were and what they would do? That again is such a stupid argument and I'm sorry for saying that, but I'm not really sorry. Christ ordained Judas and the 70 Judas betrayed him. Peter denied him three times. And the 70 that that he prayed over and went around healing the sick and casting out devils in his name forsook him. What does that prove? So what is your argument? I don't get it. According to the Bible, Jesus Listen people, and I I say this to to our churches so many times. Listen, Jesus was the Messiah. You that leave the message and want to defend the me the Bible and Jesus Christ against the message, listen to me. Jesus Christ is the Messiah, the son of God, the son of man. And all he could get was 11 disciples and a church of 120 people to believe him really. And you want the whole world to listen to brother Baram and and where brother Barham must be so perfect, right? That he must be so convincing, he must say things in such a way that it must please the mind of every rational thinking person. Yet Jesus Christ himself could only get 11 committed disciples and 120 people in the first church. What is your argument? Because it really doesn't sound good. Being the Messiah, having the most reportedly amazing ministry, was that all was that all the people he could come up with in his time? Does that make Jesus false because he ordained men who were eventually going to reject him? Didn't he know? Well, he did. He said, "I've chosen the 12 of you, and one of you is the devil." All right, I could go on, people. There's so much to this. Um, accusation number four, the most favorite of all, the cloud of 1963. So, they claimed that brother Benham The Cloud of 1963: Analyzing the original Life Magazine article. lied that he was there on February 28th, which I want to say he did not say. Brother Benham, there's no place in the message where he says he was there on February 28th. I've had this argument with people on both sides in the message and out. Because there are people in the message who say, "Brother Bam said he was there on February 28th." He doesn't, right? There are some who adamantly claim that he was there on February 20th. I found no place in the message where he says that. If you do, please show it to me. However, there are places in the message where he speaks as if he was there when the picture was taken. That's a problem, right? That's what gets people uh in nuts. But if you read enough of the message and you get to know how he speaks, then you will understand his words. The truth is he spoke like any flawed man. A man with flaws without the greatest articulation and with possible inconsistencies based on his own personal mental acuity and inabilities for which I believe God chose him. God chose him for the way he spoke, for exactly his grammar, for everything that he was. God chose him for the very reason. So I've heard people who live leave the message claim who told me, "Brother Perry Green's testimony was that the picture, the cloud picture was docked to make the face of Christ visible." Okay, fine. Uh probably it was done. I don't know. So I want to show you the actual magazine and picture. I photographed it. I have my own personal copy here of the actual life magazine uh the the the edition the May 17th edition. I have one of those here. It's was preserved over time. So, I've got one of them. So, I took a picture of it for you and I'm going to share that with you. Okay. Um here we are. So, this is the cover of the life magazine. You can see there governor and the new Mrs. Rockefeller. You can see the the date there at the bottom. May 17th, 1963. All right. So, this is the cover of the magazine. If you open it up, you will find this picture. Okay. A high cloud ring of mystery. Now, notice this is the actual original picture. And my magazine seems to have a little blemish and a fold there on the page. So that uh thing there in the center is not exactly in the picture. And on the right there is an article and other pictures taken from distances. You've got a picture taken from Phoenix. You got a picture taken from Prescott. You've got a picture taken from what is this? Winslow. So in other words, even though the cloud uh appeared over Flag Staff, it could be seen from cities miles away. That's how high this thing was. Okay. So then if you continue and you read the article, which is important, the article tells you it was taken the picture was taken over Febru February 28th. Uh watches struck by the clouds, odd shaped. So if you read also in this magazine on the on the the page just before this there's uh it seems like this section of the magazine was um printing like mysteries things that were unexplained on the other side were these like moon beams created in somewhere um oh or something like that. So uh it's like this segment where they were showing mysterious things. Okay. And this man Dr. James McDonald, a meteorologist at the Institute of Atmospheric Physics in Tucson. His words were, this is not brother Brandham's word, 26 mi high, 30 mi across, a lot higher and bigger than a cloud should be. That's his words, uh, a circle was, the circle was too high to be made by a jet plane. As and I'm reading as far as Dr. Macdonald can determine there were no rockets, rocket planes, or bombs being tested nearby that day. He hopes anyone else with pictures will lend them to him. This is the article. For he would like some more clues about the cloud 26 mi up where no water droplets exist at the height to make at that height to make a cloud. So I'm saying to you that's the article brother Brandham read when it was published in May 17. He didn't make that up. That was written by the scientist. The scientist who took the picture said there were no rockets. There were no bombs. He had checked and then he was asking for other people to corroborate and whatever. So I don't know if he came up thereafter. I'm not even sure because I haven't read all the stuff on it. I really didn't have any interest in doing so because it really doesn't interest me because I know exactly what this whole thing is about and it doesn't matter to me. Right? So the picture and article were not influenced or written by brother Brandon. It was done before he was aware that it was even a cloud. The claim is now from what I'm hearing from what's been published in many places is that there was a Thor rocket which NASA fired on the west coast and it was most probably the cloud from that rocket that made this thing. So what is the truth of it? The truth is brother Brandham was never there on February 28th when this thing was photographed. Right. Right. By his own accounts, he was traveling to see a young man on death row in Houston, and he only arrived back in time for hog hunting season to be open. By his own account, he was probably there in the region between the 5th and the 8th of March, which would be one week or so after the cloud had appeared over Flag Staff. That's one week later. You'll you'll literally hear him say in the message like in the breach message uh he said a week or 10 days the breach message was on the 17th of March 1963. He says something like a week or 10 days ago this happened and he was in Tucson and so on and he gives an account. So one week later is his testimony. But yet when he speaks about it while preaching in a passion of preaching he's afterward after seeing the article and recognizing this cloud right during that hunting trip he has an experience. He details the experience when he comes to preach the seals. He talks about an experience that he has. He does not mention what shape or what the cloud look like. He talks about this pyramid-shaped constellation and he only talks about the experience. Perhaps in the experience as it went up it formed a shape. As it went, that's the best we know. When he sees it in the magazine, he didn't see a doctorred picture which someone else doctorred it. But when he sees this picture that I just showed you and reads that article, it immediately resonates with him. Nobody has to tell him. It immediately resonates with him. That's his experience, right? And he already had the experience before the picture was published. When he speaks about it afterward, he's like all over the place. So excited. His stories about it over the next 2 and 1/2 years are conflicting in the details of where, what, and which date, but the experience he has still remains the same. Seven angels appear constellation telling him about the seals. That's the experience. The story about the cloud might be conflicting but the experience is exactly the same. Only in Easter of 1965 is he urged by the Holy Spirit to turn the picture to the right and he identifies it is our Lord up there. Right? He details over those two 2.5 years uh all over the place. But he even says in what is the attraction on the mount. So let let me give you an example. So in what is the attraction on the mount is the only time he actually mentions sunset mountain. The only time he speaks out where he always talks about being in Tucson and so on and so on. But then he says in what is the attraction of the mountain? He says something like, "Get on the map and see if sunset peak there." Watch this. He says, "That's exactly where it happened. I never know it till the other day." So in what is the attraction? 1965 is the only time he speaks about Sunset Mountain. Why? Because whatever happened when he was in Tucson or wherever he was or whichever place he was in, this is his account. You can't go and try to argue with these believe the sign people or people leaving the message and make and put your own facts in there. You'll just come up short. Don't do that. Right? Whatever happened after his death was because by those who followed him, many brothers in the message were zealous message people who made the mistake like all people who idolize a man. When people respect a man, listen people, I've got some of the books here myself. When you respect a man, you make an idol out of him, right? You you make books about him. You write books. You print books about him. You'll print better books about him. You'll print his name in gold and silver. You'll enhance pictures about him. You'll use even AI to brush things up and make them look even prettier, make it nicer to because you want people to share in your excitement. All the while doing so, you are tapping into a human element of idolizing somebody or something. So, this was no mistake. My point is, young people, if you're confused, older people, if you're confused, I'm telling you right now, this was no mistake. God permitted it because God knew it's going to happen. This is what you've got to understand, right? When uh it had to be God permitted it. God. Do you really think if God was with William Brandham all his life, gave him visions, gave him the word, this this uneducated man gave him the word and that what he was going to say was not going to produce this whole ruckus in the the after the year 2000, did you really think God did not know this was going to happen? Do you think this just happened by mistake and these people all are suddenly incentivized to to go out and uh come against the message and publish stuff? Did you think God did not know this was going to happen? Well, of course he did. This exactly why he chose the man to say those things to actually produce the problem. People made it all about them, but it had nothing to do with them. Cloud has nothing to do with you people. Sorry. It was all to do with him. His experience and this picture taken by strangers served to do only one thing and one thing for him to vindicate to him the seventh seal to him personally to strengthen him to complete his work. How do we know this? Many people saw the cloud in that time. It meant nothing to them. It still doesn't. But to him it meant something because he had a vision of Christ in Miller's field as a young man. Later he sees a Hoffman's head painting in Billy Sunday's church. And then he connects the person he sees in a vision in Millersfield to the one he sees in Billy Sunday's church on the Hoffman's head and said that is the closest that's the kind of person I never saw Hoffman's head before but the one I saw in a vision in Millisfield looks so close to Hoffman's head only to realize that years later a cloud is going to appear which he's not even going to photograph but that that picture of Hoffman's head is going to fit so perfectly ly into the cloud. You can do that with the picture taken in this magazine, right? You don't have to doctor the picture. It actually fits in there. It's going to appeal to him personally. If you and I saw it, we would never have thought of it because we didn't see Millisfield experience. We didn't have Milisfield experience. We didn't see it for the first time in Billy Sunday's church. No, we were told this happened, this happened, this happened. You accept it by faith, right? uh you'll actually read about this in spiritual food induces paragraph 85 to 87. So to say these people influenced by these websites to say he was lying all the time would mean he actually had the incentive or the intent to deceive. Did he really? This is all happening in real time. Did he really? Did William Brandham know? Oh my, I got to say all this about this cloud because I'm going to deceive thousands and thousands of people after I'm dead. Really? Did he this man really have the smart to deceive the FBI to deceive people among them? He was like he must have been the most one of the most brightest geniuses of his time to have duped so many people. Right. Okay. um when you look at it and he says, "I didn't even know this about Sunset Mountain. I didn't even know this until the other day." He was like, "Didn't you read the article properly?" Right? Okay. The way to look at this young people is to look at the first coming. Um so remember now this is an these are accusations brought against brother Benam. He was the only one who recognized Christ in the cloud. It was his record that that is our Lord up there. Okay, are you ready for this? John the Baptist’s need for a sign (the Dove) to identify his own cousin. Here's John the Baptist who's waiting for a sign in the heaven to show him who Christ is. Listen people, wake up and smell the coffee. Jesus was his cousin, so to speak. He played with him. They had family gettogethers together when they were kids. They had functions together. They had maybe bomb mitzvah together. I don't know. But they were cousins. They visited one another. He knew this man. He knew this this teenager who he played with. He was 6 months older than him or something like that. But he was he saw him. He saw how weird this guy was. He saw you know the way he acted. But you know he didn't he must have heard the prophecies. His mother, Elizabeth, would have spoken of Mary and how what had happened and how that when she spoke, the babe leapt in the womb. He must have heard all that. But through his entire life, you mean to tell me he lived with Jesus Christ and didn't know he's the Messiah and he was waiting for a sign in the heaven? Come on people, wake up. Read the Bible better. Right? So when the sign only when the sign came then John who's the cousin of Jesus says oh it's you and it takes a sign from heaven to show me this really you people living the message because you believe the sign what is your answer to this right the man is living with with Christ knows who Jesus is but needs a sign from heaven to say this well that is what a prophet needs for vindication ation. Let's read John 1:31-35. All right. Are you still with me? Praise be to God. I know it's taking long, but I got to get through this. And I knew him not, but that he should be manifest to Israel. Therefore am I come baptizing with water. This is John speaking. And John bare record. I saw I saw the spirit descending from heaven like a dove and it abodeed upon him. And I knew him not. I knew him not. Hold on. You didn't hear your mother speaking about Mary and her baby. You Nobody told you what happened in the temple at 12. You see this guy? He's your He's your cousin. He's He's so weird. He's always so knowledgeable about the gospel. Can you don't know? I knew him not. What are you talking about? But he that sent me to baptize with water, which means John heard a voice telling him to go and baptize with water. Same said unto me, upon whom thou shalt see the spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is he which baptized with the Holy Ghost. Which means John who lived with Jesus for about 30 years was unsure that he was the Messiah. And you got people today believing that Jesus will come and they'll be so sure they'll know exactly who he is. You know, I don't understand. These people don't read the Bible properly. In verse 34, he says, "And I saw and bear record that this is the son of God." Right? So, I saw and I bear record that this is the son of God. So here he sees his cousin walking to him and at the time after 30 years his cousin comes walking to him on the banks of the the Jordan to come and be baptized of him and he sees a sign in the heaven. Now here's the question. Did everybody else see that sign h no only John saw it. Why? Right. And here's something. Somehow the Jews knew that Messiah would be identified by a sign from heaven. Right? That's why they kept asking. Go read Matthew 16:1, Mark 8:11, Luke 11:16. Show us a sign from heaven. Show us a sign from heaven to show that you're the Messiah. Somehow they knew even Jesus Christ himself said that spoke of the sign of the son of man appearing in the heavens relating to the second coming. So it's actually a thing. A sign in the heaven to to show the sign of the coming is a thing that forerunners are supposed to identify. It seemed like John knew this. He was not just going to accept what they said about Jesus, about what his mother said about Jesus, about the accounts of Mary and Joseph. He was not just going to accept that. He was waiting as the forerunner for a sign from the heaven which only he would recognize, he would identify and it would only vindicate to him personally. That's why I say to you that cloud is not about you, right? It's about him. It was only for him to vindicate something to him concerning the seventh seal. It was only for him. You can do all you want to to make it about you. It's just not. So don't even waste your time trying to defend it or try to go back and it was not for you. Stop making it about you and the bride and everybody else. It was for him. He bear record. He spoke about it. He said, "Go read the message." What was that circle of light? It was him vindicating his word. Amen. Okay. So what was that was the purpose of the forerunner. It was a sign. It was not a sign everyone would accept. You know I even said when I was preaching about it I said to the people John looked up and sees the spirit of God descending like a dove. It wasn't a dove. It was something like a dove. Could it have been a cloud in the shape of a dove? Could there have been something that opened up the sky and something looked like a shape of a dove and light beaming down on Christ as he walked to the river? Somebody looking from the north or the south or the east or the west seeing the same thing must have said, "hm, that looks like a dog or a cloud. Oh, it's pointless." Like, what is that? Maybe most people didn't even see it. Maybe most people didn't even care. Only John recognized it and it resonated with him and he preached that is the coming of the Lord. Okay. Now as the church of tomorrow you have to be prepared for such things. You have to see the purpose of God choosing brother Benham was so that the message would be rejected by many. Wake up people. Do you really think there's going to come an Elijah who's going to be accepted by everybody? I don't understand. This is why I say people leaving the message didn't really see the message. Because if you really see the message, then you know these things had to be okay. So the message that you believe is going The Message on Trial: Why it must be picked apart and shamed. to be on trial. That's why my title is the message on trial. It's going to be on trial exactly like Christ is right. I'm telling you right now, the message you believed has to be on trial. It has to be picked apart. It has to be disproved. It has to be shamed just like Christ was. It has to be broken down. It has to be trampled on. It has to be crushed in a way that it has to shake you to your roots and shake your very core of your belief. It has to be that way. It was ordained to be that way. That's why God chose that man. If he chose me, ought to have messed it all up. He chose that man for that purpose. That's exactly why it is necessary. While everyone else focuses on that, the bride focuses on the word. Everyone else is going to focus on proving him wrong, defending him or something, the bride is focusing on the word. The question you have to ask yourself, young people, is are you going to be able to stand when everything around you is proving it wrong? Will you stand when your friends, your loved ones, your mother, your father, your brother, your sister fall away and are deceived by what they read or what they see or watch. Young people, you are the church of tomorrow. What are you going to to do? How are you going to be prepared for what's coming? Okay, I'm going to ask you some real questions as we close and answer me this. Which Christian denomination can you name for me right now that will you can actually depend on? If you leave this message right now, which one are you going to go to that will withstand the mark of the beast? Tell me which one. Which Christian denomination, if you leave the message, which one is totally perfect and dependable? Pentecostals, Episcopalians, Baptist, Anglican, Jehovah's Witness, 7th Adventist. Which one is perfectly on the money with the Godhead, with Jesus, with the deity of Christ, with predestination, with the original sin, with baptism the correct way? Which one is the one that will not fold to the mark of the beast? Which one? Which church is not interested in having a lobby in the political world to need funding from the government? Which one? Which church has the word that can sustain you and keep you for what's coming? So, I have no reason to convince you. The choice is completely yours. We have no reason to fight against you. I have no reason to fight against believe the sign or seek ye the truth or whoever they be. I am not I don't want to be an apologist. I don't want to defend brother Madam's misstatement here or this statement there or uh how this was said or whether he made a mistake with the number or I don't I don't have the desire to do that. I don't even have the time to do that. I'm not going to do it. It's very simple. It's entirely your choice. The question comes down to what went you out to see? What did you see? A reed shaken in the wind? A prophet? It's your choice, right? Concerning Christ, Christian apologists claim that Josephus and Tacitus may not have reported Christ's miracles because his deeds may have been suppressed by the Jews or Rome. So I'm saying let's say believe the sign and seek ye the truth have good intentions. Let's say they are being fair, which I don't think they are really. If you are doing proper investigations and proper journalism, you want to you want to present something to the public, you should be unbiased. Okay? So, if you really want to be fair and unbiased, why only interview people who are anti- William Brandham, people who are disgruntled and hurt by a church, and you interview them and make them give their testimony and publish it. Why only interview people who are who are anti? Why not interview people on the other side and say, "Here's what these people said, but let's interview brother so and so and let's hear what he say." Why not interview somebody who is pro- William Brandon? Let him have his say. Don't debate him. Why not interview all those people who say this prophecy did come true? I was healed in the meetings. I get people here in South Africa who believe they were healed in Brother Barham's meetings uh nobody interviews them uh to to come forward. Why not put it on your website and say well here's all the testimonies against William Brandom. Here's all the testimonies for William Brandham. Here's all now here's the unbiased record. You decide. No, they're not willing to do that. Nobody's willing to do that. So young people for all the testimonies you hear of the naysayers who left the message and tell you how they were in a cult and they were with this minister and this one did to them. Why don't you listen to the thousands of people who are actually happy in the message who are thrilled with the their minister and the their life in the message and they are happy and they will tell you of their salvation and a healing and how the message made them give up smoking and drinking and a life of of drug addiction and all that. Why not hear their testimony? Why only all the negative? Are you really being fair? Right? Why not? Why will not believe the side in seeking the truth not just report what these people say that is for the message and leave it at that? Why? Why not do that? That would be fair and balanced critique. Academic fair and balanced critique. Nope. They will not do that because it it goes against the incentive and the aim to prove that he's a false prophet. I can tell you there are scores of people who will stand up right now and say, "I was in the meetings. He was the true prophet. I was in the meetings. I was there. Uh my daughter was healed. My child was healed." There's many people who will be willing to stand up and say it. But they'll not search them out. They'll not interview them. People who are inspired by these sites. Now, I'm not talking about the people who made the sites. I'm talking about those inspired by the people who now speak to me and say, "I'm leaving the message. I'm disgruntled." Whatever. I found this. They are hurt. They are emotional. And now they are just anti-brenham. And they try to argue the word, but they betray the fact that they themselves do not know the Bible well enough to even support their views. They just don't because while they were in the message, they didn't study the message or the Bible. They didn't even know the scriptures. So they just spew something out from a website. They themselves do not even have when you speak to them, you can hear they're not confident. It belongs to the people who created the website and did the videos. They're the ones who are putting it out. So this is an amazing thing that you can find on the internet. So I I just just for the sake of the young people, you go to the internet and I did this with with I asked the uh co-pilot on my browser, the AI, give me the historical evidence for AI analysis of the Resurrection vs. the vindication of a modern prophet. the resurrection of Christ. And here it spits out all these things and facts and all this kind of stuff that's there. But I want to show you this is amazing, right? And I want to share this with you. This is what AI says. All right. The AI analysis, it says the historical evidence for the resurrection rests on documented eyewitness testimony corroborated across multiple independent sources. Early attestation of empty tomb and post-mortem appearances. behavioral transformations of disciples and enemies. In other words, the effect of Christ on the disciples and enemies is proof of Christ. Rapid emergence of a movement centered on these claims. Now, here's the AI's assessment. Given these convergent strands, many historians argue that the resurrection of Jesus Christ provides the most coherent explanation of the cumulative historical data through interpretations though interpretations vary between naturalistic and theistic framework. So what this is saying is because of these things because of these four things he had eyewitnesses an empty tomb early early attestation of empty tomb. In other words, not long after the fact, they said the tomb is empty. Early attestation behavioral transformation. That means the way people were taken up and the way a movement was formed so rapidly is why historians seem to believe that Jesus Christ was actually true and that his resurrection was actually true. So I'm saying by that standard people after brother Baron you have documented eyewitness testimony corroborated across multiple independent sources. You have early attestation of events that took place in his life. You have behavioral transformations of disciples and enemies. And you have a rapid emergence of a movement centered on all those things. I am asking you, is this proof that there was a prophet amongst us in our day and that God was with him? Okay, maybe it's not enough. Who needs to trust AI anyway? Let's live by faith. So, in closing, let's assume that Malachi 4:5 and 6 was manifested in the time of John the Baptist. I'm asking you young people and those who are confused, discouraged by the prophet, who will feel like you want to leave the message. If you say that Malachi 4:5 and 6 was John the Baptist, I'm asking you, is everything in Malachi 4, was it all manifested in John the Baptist day? Was John the Baptist day and Christ, was that the great and dreadful day of the Lord that occurred after John the Baptist? The question is, what do you believe? What do you believe? Do you believe that John the Baptist came to turn the hearts of all the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers? And do you believe that it was accomplished in John the Baptist day? Did John turn the hearts of the fathers to the children and the children to the fathers? Did he do it? Do you have proof of that? If you believe that, then that's okay. And it remains to be seen whether it was true and achieved in its purpose. From my knowledge and my reading and my assessment of what happened in history, it doesn't look like it was achieved. Who were the children? Who were the fathers? How were their hearts turned? Everybody rejected Christ. So whose hearts were turned? What's your explanation? My next question, if you're expecting Elijah to return in this day, are you expecting an articulate man with perfect speech, who gets nothing wrong, who convinces everybody of what he is saying, who proves everything to the world, who performs perfectly documented miracles and signs that are accepted by the whole world. And do you are you expecting a man who preaches a message that is so easily understood perfectly accepted by everybody? Is that your expectation? Uh because it's a very unrealistic expectation because that is absolutely not an Elijah. And Elijah is a completely all over the place messed up individual who nobody accepts and who's running for his life. What kind of Elijah are you expecting? Okay. In fact, the Elijah that appears in Revelations 11 who must come to the 144,000 is so unaccepted that they kill them. Moses and Elijah are killed and their bodies lie dead in the streets for 3 days. So, what kind of Elijah were you expecting? One whose thus sayeth the Lord's were perfect. One whose words were impeccable. One who never gets anything upside down. One who's accepted by everybody. One who everybody must believe. One who's going to make all the churches unite until they all so loveydvey and love one another and hugs all around. Is that the Elijah you accepting? Because if it is, expecting because if it is, you're not reading your Bible properly. Okay, I just want to also say you know the song these are the days of Elijah, right? That was not written by message people. Clearly there are scores of people in the denominations who are expecting an Elijah to return. That song was written these are the days of Elijah right there. They were written by Pentecostal people who are waiting for the coming of the Lord and are expecting an Elijah of sorts. That's why you had all those people on the internet claiming to be Elijah. Those of you who are leaving the message or have left the message or wondering whether you should leave the message, think about what kind of Elijah you think God should send to convince you of the coming of Christ. And what exactly do you want that should happen? How exactly you think it's going to happen that the Elijah God sent is going to convince you? What is it going to take to convince you of the coming of Christ? If you consider this with a clear heart and come up with an idea of what the majority of people want, you are going to realize how completely off your expectation is with regards to the Bible and the consistency of the word. It is certainly a frightening time for the world that we are living in right now. And people want a convenient God. They want a message that accommodates sinful living and unrighteousness. They want a message that doesn't judge their deeds and allows them to do whatever they want to do. They want a message that makes people feel good about themselves and doesn't challenge their doubts. All the prophecies in the Bible warn us of what is coming and tells us that there will be a massive falling away from the truth. So I'm not really sure what all these people who are leaving the message were inspired who were inspired by these websites. What what are they actually expecting? But I hope and pray for all mankind including those who leave that we all find grace in his sight and mercy at his throne. Lastly, if you are someone who has been hurt by a church and people, consider that people are just people who tried that to do their best. It isn't easy running a church. Those of you young people who are hurt by a pastor or the deacons or something, I want you to think about what you would do if you were a pastor. You were the deacon. How would you handle things in your in your situation? You do not know what it takes to run a church, to to manage people, to be a shepherd. Uh would you allow your daughter to marry someone who comes in with piercings and tattoos of a devil on his left shoulder and says, "I don't believe in God." What would you how would you tell your daughter that you can't marry this boy, that I'm not in favor? How would you handle it? Hugs, kisses, roses, chocolates. Tell me, tell me. Be honest. Be rational. Be rational in your thinking. And if you come up to me as a pastor and tell me, "Brother All, I want to marry this girl, but she hates William Brandon." You You really want me to be okay with that? Do you really want me to say to you, "Hey, look, son, that's okay. It's your choice. We're good. You know, it's fine." Do you if you do you if you come to me and say, "Hey, brother Al, there's this girl I want to marry and but she's atheist. She hates Christ. She she wants nothing to do with Christ." Do do you expect me to handle you as in Hey, that's fine. That's great. Go. You go for it, boy. Would you do that for your daughter? How would you handle it? My my my point is put yourself in the pastor's shoe and ask yourself how you would deal with you. Okay, be mature now, right? I agree there are some good and bad actors and there are some very bad actors out there. Pastors, ministers, church people. I agree with you. There are some of them who are terrible, but there's a lot of them who are good and who are trying their best. Then I want you to think about freeing yourself from the hurt. young people, if How to handle church hurt: A call to maturity and grace. you've been hurt by them, you've been treated badly, write them a letter. Go talk to them. Don't be afraid. What's They're not going to bite you. They're not going to eat you up. What's the worst they could do to you? Tell you more bad words. Go and get the hurt out. Tell them, "You hurt me in the way you treated me. This is what you said about me. This is what your people have said about me, and you really hurt my feelings. If you were wronged and if you are wrong, if you were wrong in what you did, if you did something where you backslid, don't try to justify yourself, but admit to your errors, but say, "Listen, the way you treated me really hurt me." Go tell them you're a free agent. If you tell someone how you feel, the worst that could happen is they get more upset with you and you're good after that. You walk away. Your heart is free. You don't have an obsession. You're not sleeping with these people living rentree in your head. You deserve a happy life. You deserve a good life to find your happiness by your own choices. Do not live with hurt that causes depression and anger. Get it out of your system. Lastly, uh parents, if you have children who have been influenced by these people, by what they've seen online, I just want to tell you, even if they've left the message, it isn't too late. Do not listen to they were not seed in the first place. I want to tell you continue living sweetly with them. Do not criticize them. Do not hurt them more. Do not call them names. Live a real Christian life. Share with them your your scriptures that bless you. You don't have to shove the message down them or say just live real salty with them. Right? I believe that they rejected a message of a perception and not the real word. I believe they can still come back if they see the real message. What they have left is bananomism. And maybe you are at fault too. Maybe the church is at fault. But you have no reason to give up hope or to think, "Oh, they rejected the prophet. They're serpent seed." Don't do that. Don't do that. There is always hope. And Christ is the final judge of all things. So you just trust in him. There is hope, saints. May the Lord bless you. May the Lord be with you. I hope this gives you something to think about that this gives you some some uh zeal within you to press on. We are living in the greatest time. God has been among us in the in the message of the prophet. Do not be discouraged. Do not let this discourage you. God has already foreseen this. God knew this was going to happen. And you need to realize, you need to know who you are. And that there was a man sent from God to identify something that was meant for you in this day to see the coming of the Lord manifested in you personally. Everything that's coming against it is to prevent you from seeing this truth. Don't fall for it. That's not what it's about. Amen. You and I here are fellowshipping on the body, word of the son of man. That's what's it about. The Lord bless you. Have a wonderful evening. God be with you until we meet again. Amen.

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