Stolen Revelation: William Branham's Strategy

Music Hello and welcome to another episode of the William Brannum Historical Research Podcast. I'm your host, John Collins, the author and founder of William Brannum Historical Research at William-Brannum.org, and with me I have my co-host, researcher, minister, and friend Charles Paisley, the founder of Christian Gospel Church.org.

And together we're examining the history and the intersections in history between William Brannum and other key figures that either influenced or were influenced by the post-World War II healing revivals. Charles today is an episode that I have to say the theologians who are interested in the Brannum history are going to find just fascinating because, as you know, many of these historical accounts of William Brannum are produced by men whose ministries would not exist without William Brannum, simply put.

They use William Brannum as a stepping stone and it blossomed into this massive multi-million dollar organization. And you can't really say that, well, the foundation of this thing came from this guy with very destructive theology.

You have to say, well, he was really good until I parted ways with him. And then when I parted ways, it was because he had turned bad. And so it's really strange because they all point to like 1963-ish as the date in which all of this alleged change in his ministry happened.

But then when theologians and historians today go back and examine the actual transcripts, they're scratching their heads thinking, well, wait, how's it different from the earlier years? It's the same destructive theology in many ways.

And the people in the message, the believers who are in the cult of personality will say, well, this was just progressive revelation. He changed and he became different because there is a difference whenever you look at 1963, which we'll get into in a bit in this episode. And then when we get into the mental health episode in future, we'll probably dive even deeper as to why it's different.

But there's also some historical context. There were many, many, many things going on behind the scenes that were very sinister. that many of these men knew. And they progressively got worse in 1963 when they separated. And for lack of a better way to say it, some of them separated to cover their butts. And so as we get into today's episode, I think it's going to be a little bit fascinating just to see that these weren't really progressive revelations. There was a method to the madness.

Yes, John, that is that's that's well put. In today's episode, yeah, we're going to continue examining how William Brandham copied his teachings and revelations from other people. And in the last episode, we shared some examples where certain things that William Brandham said that he learned through visions or through supernatural experiences were, in fact, things he had just read out of his library books. And we showed several examples of that in the last episode where he did that in different sermons, including the sermons on the seven seals. And you know, finding out the degree to which William Brandham copied every significant thing he ever preached from other people

is really quite hard to wrap your mind around when you have lived your whole life in the message. Because there's certain things, especially the seven seals, which he specifically told us was divine revelation from God that no one anywhere ever had known before he preached it. But then to find him literally reading almost word for word, all of the essential parts of those sermons out of his library books totally undermines William Brandham's credibility. And like I said in our last episode, you don't even have to try and decide right away whether those interpretations that he

was giving a right or wrong, right? You don't got to decide whether the commentary he was using a right or wrong. You can set that aside at first and figure that out later. The bigger issue and the more immediate one to recognize is the fact that William Brandham was deceiving us about having visions and visitations from angels and supernatural experiences. That is really what what these facts most especially shine a light on. We have proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that William Brandham was faking those visions and was perpetrating a hoax. And William Brandham did not do this thing

just once or twice. You know, we have, again, solid, unquestionable evidence that William Brandham did this many, many, many times. And when you discover that, it just throws everything into question. It proves that a lot of the things in the message that we thought were prophetic words through William Brandham was in fact, William Brandham just repeating the ideas and concepts that he learned from other people. It was not prophetic at all. It's just a restatement of the commentary of other men.

You know, I'm not theologian. I'm very open in saying that I'm not. I am a study of the Bible. I've read the Bible many times and continue to study it. There's this notion within Christianity that those in the camp that believe that demons are very real and exist today will tell you that the demons can communicate with each other and they can mold what they do off of what they have seen historically, but they don't have the power to see the future. So they can't see what's happening. They can see what has happened. For those in that camp, who view William Brannum as having a demon, I personally

am not in that camp. I do not believe that he had this spirit guide that many people claim. He William Brannum referred to it as his angel and the angel was on the platform with him and this angel was Jesus, which is a when you take a step back and look at it through the Bible. It is a demonic statement that he's making. So again, you know, the powers that controlled William Brannum were demonic, but claiming that he had this entity on the platform with him, I believe truly was nothing more than a stage persona. Those who were not in this

camp, those who believe that he had a spirit guide and he was professing these visions, revelations, etc. that he was getting from the spirit guide. If I were to take a moment and just say that, you know, explore that philosophy, that camp in that version of Christianity, people that believe that this is what was going on with William Brannum, it does fit because right, the demons can't see anything new, anything in the future. They can only speak to what has happened, what the other demons have seen historically. And when William Brannum stands on the platform and he says, I have this angel who's standing here with me and oh, by

the way, this angel is Jesus Christ, which again is blasphemy because he's lowering the status of God of Jesus Christ to that of an angel. And then he produces something that he's actually read from a book. It does support those who are in the camp that he had a demon on the platform with him because the demon could be aware of this thing that happened historically. And there's nothing new with what William Brannum has said. He's literally pleasureizing something, the works of other people. And he's doing it not bringing anything of value that is new other than he molds it to fit his stage persona. So the only

new elements are things that literally point to himself to either deify himself or to give him supreme religious authority over doctrine and scripture. So if you are in that camp and you're listening, you can't explore this because he's not bringing anything new.

What's very interesting and the point that I'm trying to lead to is the people who are in the message who are unaware that he's copying these things from other people, they see them as something new.

So they're unaware whether they're in the camp who believes he has a demon or an angel on the side with them or not. They believe he's bringing something new when in fact he is just copying the works of other people.

So John, what I've determined at this stage after all the years I have spent studying this, what you see behind me in this picture is a near replica of William Brownham's personal library. And I have painstakingly collected not just a different edition of the same book, I have hunted the same editions of the same books in his library to study because I want to see what he was looking at when he got these books in the 40s and in the 50s and in the 60s.

And just trying to understand all of this stuff, John, because I wanted to know and I was obsessed with this, where did the things that they taught us come from? Because like you said, John, I mean we believed that he got not everything, but we do believe that a large chunk of what was taught to us in the message was divine revelation given to him through supernatural experiences.

And the authority of those things we believe was based on the fact that we believe that God himself sent a divine message with it, right? Because obviously not everything William Brownham taught is in the Bible, right?

Yeah. I mean we all know that even people in the message know that not everything William Brownham taught is in the Bible. So what gave it its powers? God himself revealed it, you know, supernaturally.

So when you find out that's not the case, right, it's what is it then anymore? It's just William Brownham's ideas about things other people wrote. Yeah. And for our listeners who are on the audio only feed, Charles is in a room filled with actual books.

It's not just an image. There are actual books in an actual library and what's interesting and the reason I'm interrupting the point I want to make is there was actually a shift in what was said by both people who were in William Brownham's cult of personality and people whose ministries came from William Brownham's cult of personality, once the din was open to the public.

Before this, people had never seen these books. They had no idea William Brownham had these books that literally had everything that he quote unquote revealed to the people. Prior to that time, the common message theology was that William Brownham brought the hidden mysteries himself and they came directly from an Angel to William Brannum to you, the people of God, the elite Christians, as they seem to refer to themselves.

Once the din was opened, however, the shifted. Now people saw the books, they were aware that, wait a minute, he has these things, and I actually, no ministers, I've actually sat down with ministers who had Clarence Larkin's dispensational truth while they were in the cult, and they've now escaped now that they realized, wait a minute, he copied the seven seals and the church ages from Larkin and other sources.

But once they opened this din to the public and people became aware, combined with, they had the index of his sermons and transcripts searchable so you could type in and you could see, like you pointed out in the last episode, he has a library, and I think there's a quote where he talks about receiving a large set of books from somebody.

Well, then it shifted into, William Brannum was able to take all of these different sources of original thought that came from these other people, and he was able to pick and choose which statements from which books and which articles and which cult leaders were divinely inspired truth, and he was able to bring us the truth behind what all of these cult leaders and other destructive people were saying, which is really, really weird if you take a step back and think about what they did.

Right, because it's ridiculous, right? God did not give divine revelation to Charles Taserussel. I mean, give me a break, you know, give me a, some of his sources, it's like, you got to be kidding me.

No, absolutely not. I mean, this is, it's just, it's crazy and, and, and the reason that we believed that angels or God himself came and gave these revelations to William Brannum is because William Brannum told us that angels and God himself came and gave him these revelations, right?

Like we weren't, we weren't like reading into anything. William Brannum explicitly said over and over and over and over and over and over, year in and year out that that he had angelic visitation supernatural experiences that gave him these revelations, right?

And he would even say, and this doesn't match anything I've ever read before, he would say things like that, right? I know. And so he was outright deceiving us, John. So what, what I have determined at this stage after years and years of studying all of these books behind me, John, when I started, I was in, I was in the, the, what you described, John, I was in the well, he pulled pieces together from other people and then he filled in the blanks.

There's no blanks, John, it's all copied. That's where I was and that, that's where my study eventually landed me. There is no blanks, he, it was, it's a hundred percent copy. And so after all the years of doing that, John, I don't believe there's an original thing he taught at all.

I have not been able to find one, and I cannot think of a single original thing that he ever taught. And what he would do when he prepared his sermons, especially the ones related to prophecy, is he would go into his library, so what it seems like, and he would pull out all of the books on that topic, and he'd have multiple books on those topics.

And he would compile pieces out of each of those different books into a single sermon. So he would take, you know, a dash of clearance larkin and a dash of uriasmith and a pinch of Charles Russell, right?

This is what he was doing when he was building his sermons. And so it's not a lot of them are from a single source. Most of it is he is merging multiple sources together, right?

And this is what I think a lot of people miss when they look. They read out one book, oh, this is only 60% the same, right? It's because you don't have the other book, right?

So it's like a witch's brew. Yes, he's merging multiple pieces together, right? And again, I, and we can know that is true because when you have access to the same books, you can reverse engineer his sermons pretty easily, right?

I can sit down, I have identified his favorite books, and you can just pull out his favorite books on, on whatever topic and hear it all is in those book. And it, now it's not quite so easy if you don't have all the sources because if you just read any one of the books, you will find gaps where it seems like maybe William Brannum did have some original thoughts.

You might assume those gaps that you can't find in the sources that you're looking at must have been the divine revelation from God. That's what I did for years, John. I assume, well, this gap is the divine revelation, but the further I went, as I collected more and more of these books, right?

It's just not the case. Every piece is in these books, and what William Brannum was doing in one sense, it is a fairly normal practice for preachers outside of the message when they compile their sermons to do something like this, you know, the seminary will teach a normal minister that they should listen to the other authorities on the subject, right, for the sermon they're preparing to go read different commentaries, to spend time studying the literature, and then use all of what you study, you know, compile it together and present a sermon together.

That's a fairly normal thing, actually, you know, in seminary trained preachers, but William Brannum corrupted that practice. Instead of just being honest that everything he preached was a product of his study from all of these other men, he would pretend that he got those sermons in supernatural experiences, and he would lead his audiences to think that those sermons he was preaching had the authority of prophecy.

It was just a compilation of other men's commentaries. Right. The thing that I find fascinating about this whole thing is that you know this as a minister, Charles. If you're in front of a congregation and you have a theme that you're going to introduce over the next several weeks, and you see that your audience is not receptive to that theme.

If it's something that you feel they need to know, you're going to adjust how you present it and you're going to gradually introduce it. You're going to lead them to the truth, right? If it's something that they widely accept and they're excited, then your strategy's different.

You suddenly just open up and you start talking about everything in a much different way than if they reject it. And what I see with this situation is very complicated because number one, we don't see William Brannum slowly introducing some of these things.

We see him introducing them as though his audience was very receptive to it. So when he's bringing in Charles Tase Russell, the cult leader of the Watchtower Society, when he's bringing that theology in, it appears that his audience by and large was very receptive to this cult theology from Charles Tase Russell.

I find fascinating, right? But it gets even deeper than that because whenever William Brannum is doing these things, he's introducing all of these various sources that you've mentioned, there are gaps and there are variances and within the variances of what Charles Tase Russell's theology was or his theme and what William Brannum introduced as the theology or theme, quote unquote theology or the theme, that is where the message cult following, the leaders in the message cult following will say, the mysteries lie in these variances and these gaps.

But if you really take a step back and you look at how William Brannum introduces these themes into his sermons, it appears that he did not even take the time to understand what the author was saying.

So he doesn't even understand the theme that he's bringing in and when you realize where the source is and you realize that William Brannum does not even take the time to learn what it is that he's bringing as divine truth and the gaps are all self-promotion.

It looks like you have this man who really doesn't care. He's just getting up in front of an audience because he can, you know, excite an audience, he's not even taking the time in his personal time to learn what's being said.

And I'll find this fascinating because for me, it shows that the stage persona was that of a man pretending to be a Christian who, Maybe he wasn't a Christian. Maybe he just simply didn't care.

Maybe he, you know, maybe this whole religion thing wasn't something he even enjoyed. And it opens this whole realm of exploration because why did he do it? Right. Many, many things that William Brown and preached, I'm not gonna say everything he preached, but many things that he preached cannot be understood or obtained from the plain reading of the Bible, okay?

Some, some of the things he preached just plainly, we're sitting down and reading the text of scripture, you're not gonna be able to come up with what William Brownham said, right? No. That's, and again, I think most everyone in the message would agree with that.

We thought, though, that William Brownham had a special gift of prophecy where he could interpret the meaning of prophetic imagery in symbols and the parables, right? And again, he told us he had that ability and that angels was coming to him or the Holy Spirit was doing special things to reveal to him how to interpret these symbolic imagery, right, in scripture.

And so a very large part of what we believed on in the message relies on William Brownham's prophetic teachings and not the plain reading of scripture. So in the message, you know, if preachers tell you that everything that's being taught can be supported by the plain reading of scripture, they are definitely lying to you.

And most of them I don't think would even say that, though. The message relies very, very heavily on using William Brownham's prophetic interpretation of different symbolic things to inform how they read the Bible.

And that is something, like I said, I had an awareness of that most of my life, but it does seem I have noticed, John, that not a lot of people, not the average person in the message, I don't think fully grasps that, right?

Like the Bible doesn't say the Red Horse Rider is, you know, you know, the papacy dripped in blood, right? It doesn't say that, right? But that's what we more or less believe it meant, right?

But it's William Brownham's interpretation of the symbolism, right, that we would, we relied on to get that. And, but when you discover that that that prophetic imagery that he was interpreting, that his interpretations and those things he said was prophetic was actually a hoax, things that he just read from other men's commentaries, you know, then the core doctrines of the message just collapse, right?

Because if you no longer have William Brownham as an authority to interpret the symbolic things, then there's really no authority on which to base a very large part of the message teachings, right? And so this is, I think, what is so important.

important about these, especially to someone who has some sort of a working understanding of message theology, what we thought was prophetic revelations was actually just the opinions of men who wrote these different books, right?

They presented it as commentary, just their thoughts. And then William Brannum took it and said, now this is prophecy I got in a divine revelation. So we elevated commentary to the level of prophecy, right, which is so problematic, right?

I mean, it's the same thing the Pharisees did with the, you know, with the commentaries of old, right? Like, this is a very huge problem, a huge, huge problem, right? If it's no longer prophecy, and it's just commentaries that we've elevated to prophecy.

One of the exercises that I give people who contact me for help, who are interested in remaining Christian and understanding the difference between the message and Christianity, I'm certain that your sect probably did this in a various ways, other sects all do.

But we had this theme that was introduced by, I believe it was William Brannum's son, wherein we would say that to understand the Bible, it's like a gunscope. You look down the bear, you look down the gun and you're looking through the hindsight and you can only see if you line it up with the front site, then you can hit your target, which is the Bible.

So you can, through William Brannum's sermons, you can see the Bible better as basically the, the theme of this weirdness. And one of the exercises that I give people is this, take any subject in the Bible.

If you're a, if you are a student of the Bible, just open the Bible and pick a topic. I don't care what it is. And go look through, we have now a searchable index.

You can find it on table.brannum.org of all of the sermons. Just find out what he said about it, because you will find that by and large, a significant part of the Bible was never, ever mentioned.

We discovered this by accident because my wife was very active in helping the people who were taking their children out of public schools, which is another significant problem in this cult and teaching them education.

But in the cult, when you take your child out of public school, your education is literally education of William Brannum and the Bible. And then off to the side is this thing called education.

So she is, you know, for the Bible time, she's producing these stories of Ruth and, you know, all these various Bible characters that in any church, in any state, in any city around the world, every church is going to have these characters of the Bible to teach their children the Bible.

Bible, right? Well, as we started going through William Brandham sermons, we're scratching our heads. He never mentioned this person. And when he did what he said was so polar opposite of what the Bible actually says about this person, it does not even resemble the Bible. Like it's, it's a different book. If you read it through what William Brandham said. And when you get to the point in which you learn, you come to the understanding that William Brandham is literally taking someone else's commentary of the Bible. In other words, their hindsight is lining up to their specific view of the Bible. He's using that one, but

he's also using this other one who disagreed with that one and he's using this third that disagreed with the, you know, you've got this whole array of guns pointed at a target, each one of them misaligned. And what you end up with is blurred vision. Yeah, that's well put. Because there's something else very corrupt that William Brandham did besides just pretending all this was prophetic.

He mixed and matched totally contradictory systems of theology. Yes. Right. These, these books that William Brandham are using are totally contradictory theological systems. Right. They are not compatible with each other. Okay, not at all. Clarence Larkin and Euryah Smith, for example, are two totally different systems for analyzing the book of Revelation. They are not compatible. Larkin's teachings are an evolution of the ideas that started with John Darby in the late 1700s. But Euryah Smith's ideas are from Adventism, right? That evolved out of the teachings of William Miller in the early 1800s. And they are two

fundamentally different systems and approaches for interpreting prophecy, right? And the Twain don't mix. You cannot, it's like water and oil. You cannot, it don't mix John. And what William Brandham did in trying to merge the sources was really, it was just sloppiness. Right. And that's how the message ended up with so many conflicting teachings. Because William Brandham was using these totally conflicting sources. And he was using both of the conflicting sources at the same time. And so, you know, when you use conflicting, these conflicting systems of theology, it has led to all kinds of issues in the message. One issue is is the

way we read the Bible, right? So in the message, you can't just start at verse one and read verse two, verse three, verse four, you know, all the way to the end, you have to learn how to jump around to, you know, to connect all the verses in the right way. And doing that is actually a direct result of using these conflicting systems.

And all of that jumping around you have to do in the Bible to read it the right way, how we were taught certainly in our sect, was actually a result of our efforts to harmonize these conflicting systems of doctrine, which we didn't realize we're trying to harmonize conflicting systems of doctrine. We thought we're trying to harmonize the teachings of William who was on the back end using conflicting systems of doctrine. And then so that, of course, leads to a very large percentage of the divisions and the disputes that arise in the message, right? Because the different sects have different ways to try and harmonize all of these things.

And to reconcile the different conflicts and really, John, I don't think there are two message churches in the entire world who would actually agree on what the message is. I don't think there's two churches. Not even in the same city. Yeah. Even each church has their own little unique take, their own unique span. And even within the larger sects, right? Like, there was at one point, there was many, many, many churches in my sect of the message far more.

I mean, that got along better than they do today or the main sect or the other sects, right? Even within the larger sects, there's not a uniformity among in those sects about how to reconcile all the teachings and all the inconsistencies. And at the root, all of those divisions and all of those problems go back to William Brannum, drawing the inspiration on what he preached from these incompatible systems of doctrine and prophetic interpretation. And what each sect does is the leader who rises up says, I have the formula for reconciling the inconsistencies. And then that's

how he often rises into his position is I know how to reconcile the inconsistencies. They won't say it like that. And then they take his method of reconciliation and harmonizing the problems. And then that produces the theology that that sect goes on to believe. Here's where it gets really scary Charles. I have had to work with cult experts. And I actually had to take a crash course and mind control, how mind control works. Up until that point, I'm a big fan of science fiction, books and movies, etc. I honestly thought mind control was just a science fiction theme.

You know, I had no idea this was a real thing. And when I went through the, you know, the crash course on and I learned, well, this is how Hitler radicalized a nation. He was using mind control techniques. And you go through all of the examples in history. Men are doing this. It became a series of study in the United States because this is weaponized. This is a very, very dangerous thing that people can do with the minds of normal people. And it's not just the unintelligent people.

Sometimes the smarter, more intelligent people will more are more susceptible to it because they're brains like any muscle gets tired, and so they can, you know, they're very, very easily manipulated. Well, there is a specific technique, and, you know, when I learned that this was a thing, up into that point, I thought, okay, William Brannem is just an imbecile.

He's taking doctrine A, which very, very clearly is conflicting with doctrine B to the point, you know, to the extent where it's just black or white, these two cannot coexist. And I thought, well, this man's an imbecile.

But when I learned how the technique worked, Charles, I was mortified because this was done to my head. This was done to the heads of my children. If you take two very conflicting ideas and you present it to your listeners as though they are coherent, and you just continue on and you go very rapidly and you go very loudly and very forcibly, while you're talking, their mind is trying to reconcile these irreconcilable differences.

And as their mind gets distracted with the conflicts, you give them the substance that you want to implant in their brain. And while they're distracted with this, through cognitive dissonance, their mind automatically merges the two and it surrounds what has just been planted in their head.

So in other words, it's like the Trojan horse. They slip the Trojan horse of information into the heads of the people. And everybody is distracted by the horse, right? That is what is happening in mind control technique.

In Brannum, if you take each and every example, I have not found one single example where this is not the case. When he brings a theology that is conflicting with another theology that he has, and he says that there one in the same and coherent embedded in this is self-promotion or self-deification.

He's pointing to himself, he's claiming he has an angel, he's claiming that he's God, he's the manifested Son of God, I should have said, he's bringing these things that point to himself to elevate him in authority over the people.

And so once I realized this was happening, I learned it can only be one of two things. Either it was a strategy that William Brannum himself was doing and did so strategically, or he was controlled by other men who were using William Brannum to do it strategically.

Because there is no way that he just learned this on his own without studying it. This is a very, very complicated technique, and he was doing this technique to the heads of each and every one of his listeners, what's really, really scary is, Charles, they still do this today.

They push these recordings where he's doing this on the children, and if you go to the children's camps, or you go to like, there's an indoctrination campaign, a literal children's indoctrination camp here in Indiana, and they get the children alone with these recordings that have this mind control technique in them and say, listen to this by yourself, which is, again, it's one of the techniques of mind control.

Do they know? I don't know, but they're using this technique that just wreaks havoc in people's heads. Yeah, and if you're out there listening, and you don't grasp the depth to the conflicts in William Brannem sermons, I mean, I can see that probably the average person who's never, you know, not been in the message may not understand.

And even people that have lived their whole life in a specific sect of the message and just hearing one flavor, they might not even grasp the depth of William Brannem's conflicts, but if you're someone who spent a lot of time listening to the tapes, like you, John, the conflicts should be very, very clear.

I mean, William Brannem taught every significant subject multiple conflicting ways. He taught multiple formulas of the Godhead. He taught multiple formulas for baptism. He taught multiple formulas for salvation. He taught, I mean, the essentials on down, right?

He taught multiple conflicting interpretations of parables, multiple conflicting versions of interpretations of prophecy, multiple conflicting interpretations of sanctification. I mean, on and on and on, you know, he preached conflicting incompatible versions of these teachings over and over and over again.

And I'll, maybe I'll give an example, a simple example before we're done, but, you know, in my sect of the message, John, we had a really convoluted way to explain these things that William Brannem did.

And we called it, the fan is in his hand. I've mentioned this before. And that, who in the world even knows what that means when I say it, right? In my sect of the message and all of the sects that we, we influence that is one of, that's like a, you know, a loaded language.

Everybody knows exactly what that means. That means, yeah, William Brannem can do anything and we don't care. That's what that means. And so that is a widespread belief in many, many message churches that originated in my sect of the message.

And Raymond Jackson taught our sect that, William Brannem said and did bad things on purpose to confuse the non-elect. But the true bride of Christ would be able to look through the bad things and find the good things, right?

And the end result of that teaching is that, William Brannum could do no wrong whatever bad thing he did we would just say well the fan is in his hand that's God separating the bride of Christ from everyone else and so basically William Brannum through that teaching becomes exempt from all of the standards that we would apply to anyone else and really in my sect of the message and on all the groups that subscribe to that belief there is no test that you can apply to William Brannum to find out if he was really an authentic prophet or not because you can justify literally

anything he did with that fan is in his hand idea even even things that should have obviously indicated to us that he was perpetrating a fraud with his revelations and we had to do that because you know if if you applied any spiritual or any scriptural test that you would apply to your a normal preacher William Brann would fail right if if you applied a normal scriptural test to William Brannum he would fail so you've got to some way invent a get out of jail free card for him that's how we did it other sex use progressive revelation ideas

there's a variety of ways that the different sex of the message do this and I think in our sect we specifically had to do that because our people were there from the very earliest days our people knew the truth and they had to come up with some way to justify William Brannum's bad behaviors and practices yeah and it just goes to show Charles people who were there and you have to separate there are a lot of ministers today who proclaim that William Brannum never made a mistake and all of this ministry is of God etc who were never they weren't

actually there they don't know they many of them don't know some of the things that we're talking about but the ones who were there more specifically the ones who were there and studied it like Raymond Jackson like my grandfather these men knew these men knew that it was just completely riddled with conflicts they knew it and it's really problematic Charles because they do not appear to me to be under the same level of mind control because their mind did not through cognitive dissonance make it coherent instead they said this is specifically incoherent I am aware I Raymond Jackson am aware that this statement

that William Brannum claimed came from God does not agree with this statement that William Brannum claimed came from God and so we have to decide which statement that came from God that cannot coexist with one another is actually the one from God and which is the one that William Brannum is using for deception for me that is really really really problematic because the men who helped lift William Brannum into this level of authority and control, who, oh, by the way, gained their own authority and control.

New this. Yeah. And Raymond Jackson specifically actually covered up William Brannum's lies for him. He actually participated in the lies with William Brannum. One very prominent example, John, which you have, you know, I've given you the audio of this, actually.

I think it's published in one of your videos. So, Brother Brannum used a dream from Raymond Jackson to justify, you know, his whole pyramid theology and opening the seal stuff. You know, that's the pyramid dream, which I was very surprised, John, when we got talking to discover that that is a part of core teaching and most other sex of the message.

But, um, yeah, William Brannum made all that up and Brother Jackson ever actually had that dream. And, and so I suspect that's why we never incorporated that into our second. I actually, we have on tape, John, and I, I've shared it, maybe we could put it here for the people, give them a link at least, William, Raymond Jackson covered that lie for William Brannum for, for decades and never told anybody that William Brannum was just lying about his dreams.

But yeah, before he died in, I think about 2002, Raymond Jackson told us, um, yeah, that William Brannum had just totally made, he never even had a dream about the pyramid. Next morning, Junior Jackson, who dreamed about the pyramid, I never dreamed about the pyramid.

That's just the way he said it. But I can't change it, because it's his words. And that's not the only dream of Brother Jackson's that, that Raymond that William Brannum made up too. I mean, there's, there's, there's at least three that I'm aware of that, um, William Brannum totally fabricated, refabricated the dreams into something wasn't even legitimate, right?

And the message leaders knew this was happening. They know it's a lie at the time that they cover for him, right? They cover for him. And they allow all of these ideas to be built up on top of these things that they know are absolute lies.

Let me, let me give a specific example here. I'm just going to look at one example of totally contradictory things that William Brannum would preach. And I, I'm just use one simple example out of these books.

And what I'll look at here is the woman of Revelation 12. William Brannum says in the Bible, the moon represents the church, the sun represents Christ. For we find in Revelation chapter 12, the woman was the church.

She was the moon under her feet, the sun on at her head, 12 stars in her crown. And so William Brannum is getting this from Euryah Smith's book, right. Very clear hits. It's even illustrated beautiful pictures in these books that this woman in Revelation 12 is the church.

Very clear, right. But then about four months later, about four months later, he preaches this again, John. And oh, surprise, surprise, he's pulled out Clarence Larkin's book that day. Okay. And I'll give you some clear pictures of that. Okay. And so then about four months later, he preaches again. And now he says, the 12 stars in her forehead, those was the 12 apostles, 12 church ages, and so forth just past. See? And the sun was at her head. And you see the moon, a shadow of the sun, which was the law, was a shadow of good things to come. That woman is

Israel, not the bride. And so you see, he just, it's unbelievable. You can see how he changed that, right? So now it's not the church. Now it's Israel. And it's because he's using conflicting books. And he's preaching them both. And he got that new version from Clarence Larkin's book. So it's just a simple little example there of these totally, absolutely conflicting statements, conflicting interpretations. Even the conflicting versions came from those books. That's one point and two is neither of the conflicting versions are original to William Brown. So not even his mistakes are original, John. And I can do that for literally every last thing he preached. I know where to

lay my finger on the books. I have all of these books marked. I have went through his sermons, all kinds of them. And, and here's the thing too. I want to throw this out there for people studying this. If you're, you know, a little bit down the road with a slightly evolved form of the message, this might not be so clear to you. But when you go back to the original words that William Brannum is saying on the original tapes when he preached this, it is word for word verbatim out of these books. And if you have something else that you believe today, it's because

your message preacher has altered, has altered it since William Brannum was here. Right. And, and it's not more divine revelation. It's, it's just more nonsense built on more nonsense. And purposefully so, I mean Charles, we in this cult of personality presented ourselves as quote unquote Christians. And yet, if we had have just taken a step back and woken up and thought about like Raymond, Raymond Jackson's dream, for example, the dream of the pyramid, we were taught falsely by William Brannum that the pyramid, which is an occult symbol, which has no relation.

to Christianity whatsoever. It was an Egyptian practice. It was actually a practice all around the globe. William Brenham was not aware that there were other large pyramids everywhere, but it was something that's recognized in the occult. It's not a Christian symbol that William Brenham claimed was the Bible of all things. He also said the zodiac was a Bible and men like Raymond Jackson who knew fully well that he never had this dream because it's his dream that William Brenham is talking about. And William Brenham says, you have had this dream, right? Raymond Jackson and Raymond Jackson says, oh yes, I had this dream knowing full well that he did not.

It shows that he's in on the scheme. This was a scheme. This was this was a con man and he had with him a whole wide array of con men under him to pull this thing off, right? And patsys.

Yeah, and patsys, some were patsys, some were con men. Charles, I'll ask you on the show. If I were to say on the show, hey everybody who's listening today, Charles had this wonderful dream about the Chinese zodiac. Would you agree to it? I mean, knowing that this is an occult, some of this is pagan. This is not even in any way close to Christianity. What would you say?

I would say no, you know, especially something that's a matter of faith because it, it's now I'm part of your lie, right? I mean, if you attribute something to me and I don't denounce it, I mean, I'm complicit, right? So yeah, I mean, these men were complicit in in what William Brownham was doing and and a fair number of the leaders absolutely knew.

I mean, you look like at the secret audio letters, we have to leave ale, right? Yes. The senior leaders in this thing and coming out of this thing were complicit in it and they knew, they knew, they absolutely knew. Don't think they did. Now, some of them were were brainwashed themselves, but their actions kind of betray some corrupt behavior. I'm afraid I got to say.

So, John, you've got a really good lot of good videos of William Brownham on your website where he just goes back and forth, just contradicting himself over and over and over and over. You've got some really, really, really good ones on there and again, it's really no exaggeration to say there is not a single topic that William Brownham preached consistently other than he's important, right? The only consistent topic of William Brownham sermons is William Brownham is important, okay? But there's multiple other incompatible versions of literally everything he preached. I have found one. There is one doctrine that William Brownham taught and actually,

I'm in agreement with this doctrine, Charles. William Brownham taught. Correctly, that the correct way to eat a pancake is to baptize it.

You know, I know we've got some comments on our podcast that we should, you know, people want us to spend time trying to deal with a lot of Williams brand of teachings and try to compare them to the Bible and stuff.

But it's like, but which version of Williams brand of teachings do you analyze, right? The trainitarian version, the oneness version, the Aryan version, right? Because he preached it all, right? Like which version of the message do you analyze?

And the message doesn't have a statement of faith. There's no universally agreed on way to reconcile all of his conflicting statements. And so there's, there's no way that we could universally deal with the teachings of the message in a way that would help every sect out there, right?

No matter which one, no matter how we really tackle his teachings, it's really just going to be one sect and then all the other sects, well, we don't believe it that way anyway, you know?

And they'll say, well, you guys just don't believe the message. No, I mean, we know all the conflicting versions, right? It's just, it's way too complicated to try and analyze a mountain of conflicting statements, which, which people have, have reconciled in all these different crazy ways. And, and the thing is, most of those, most of the fudes and the conflicts that go on in the message and the whole reason that there are all of these different sects is because they've all fought each other over how to reconcile all these conflicting statements, right?

Like, that's what it is. You know, another thing we did in the message was we would say that William Brandham had progressive revelation. You mentioned that at the start and that hit the picture gradually got clearer to him over time.

And, and what you have then is we'd say, then towards the end of his life, that's more accurate, right? And that's how some groups would explain away the conflicting statements. But really saying that William Brandham's sermons were progressive revelation, it actually doesn't really stand up to scrutiny if you analyze it because there, there, there is progressive revelation in the Bible, right?

Like you could say the Old Testament generally unfolds to reveal the Messiah and the New Testament, right? But, but you don't find Moses and Isaiah and Jeremiah having to go back and revise their prophecies, right?

Right. When something really came from God, it's good and it stays good, right? Progressive revelation that came from God is still timeless, right? And it age as well. But we see that's not what happened with William Brandham.

William Brandham, so-called progressive revelations, actually contradicted the earlier revelations, right? His newer revelations require you to throw away the older revelation. So it's not really progressive revelation, right? And that's just a huge red flag because progressive revelation cannot conflict and contradict earlier revelation.

What'd I tell? people who are in the support groups who are seeking help, it's like a big puzzle. Progressive revelation Charles is like a puzzle. If you get this brand new puzzle and you see all of these puzzle pieces that are read, but you don't have the picture on the box to see what it is, you might think, oh, that's a red car.

And then you start putting it together and you realize, well, wait a minute, I don't see fenders, I don't see wheels, there's no black for a car. And then you suddenly see there's this, you know, tree and you think, oh, it must be a red building next to the tree.

And then when you continue putting together, you see the tree and you start seeing grass. And suddenly there's this little rim of a lake and you see the moon shining on the lake and it's red.

You get a clearer picture of what's happening. And that's progressive revelation. You have truth, that's with truth, that's with more truth, that ends up in a clear picture of the truth. What we have with William Brannum is instead, we have a car, we have a bicycle, we have a truck, we have an airplane, we have all of these things that can't go together, but we're gonna try to take a sledgehammer and make those pieces in the puzzle fit, regardless of how different they are.

And William Brannum never himself actually made any real explanation as to why he did that, like why he preached so many contradictory things, like William Brannum never explained why he switched from Trinity to Oneness, to Trinity again, then back to Oneness again, and then back to Arianism again, and then back to Oneness at the last like, William Brannum never explained why he did that.

And the progressive revelation idea was invented by the generation of message leaders after William Brannum died, right, to try and explain his internal conflicts. William Brannum himself never really claimed progressive revelation, right? William Brannum never made these claims himself.

These are really things that were made after he died by people who realized there are terrible conflicts here, and we've got to come up with some explanation for it, right? Right. But when you think about it logically, okay, if I'm a Trinitarian and I'm switching to Oneness, I can't say that's progressive revelation, I gotta say I'm switching from error to non-error, right?

Or if I go from Oneness back to Trinitarian, and I can't say I'm, that's not progressive revelation, that is being enlightened to the truth, and what I saw before was an error, right? And so if, if William Brannum preaches two contradictory things, it's not progressive revelation, it's one of those things has to be error, right?

So he had to be preaching false doctrine. He had to be preaching false teachings, one way or the other, however you shake it. And so... And it's really strategic, Charles, because it's not just that he flipped from one to the other.

It depended on his audience. He would flip from Trinitarian to Oneness back to Trinitarian, back to Oneness, and these ministers are aware... he did this, but by saying progressive revelation, they can make their deceived people, the people who are under their manipulation, not look at the fact that William Brandon was flipping back and forth, and they think, oh, it's a clearer picture now.

Yeah. And a lot of it, John, the sad truth is, it definitely was not progressive revelation. The sad, depressing truth for a lot of this is that William Branum was just getting mixed up about his library books.

He forgot what book he used for what? And it was just sloppiness, right? These things were not core things he really believed down deep in his heart, right? And he just, he would get mixed up over which book he used and what he had said before.

And you know, when I think, John, when I think of all of the divorces and all of the broken homes and all of the destroyed lives, even the violence and suicide that have happened because of the fights and the divisions that occurred between the sex of the message over this stuff, and it has been unending this for 50 years at least, right?

When I think of all of the terrible, destructive things that have happened, because William Branum was a sloppy preacher who just couldn't keep what book do you straight, that makes me angry, John. It does.

And William Branum absolutely bears a degree of responsibility for that, because he's the one who preached all of this contradictory stuff. He's the one who laid the groundwork for the message to splinter into 100 different factions who all hate each other, right?

And the Bible says, don't everybody be a preacher because preachers are judged more strictly. And that is in part because preachers absolutely bear a degree of responsibility for the fallout of the things that they say and do that affect other people, right?

William Branum bears that responsibility both to the good and to the bad. And preachers who pretend like that's not true, you're not a good preacher. You need to stop preaching. You're dangerous, okay? You've got to start taking responsibility for the impact of the things that come out of your mouth.

Message preachers don't like to do that though. They do not like to be held accountable for anything, nothing. It's like we see with all of these horrible things that have happened around the world in the message, John.

Yeah. And some of them, as we've clearly showed on the website, some of these men were criminals who were literally hiding behind pulpits. So it's really problematic that they're doing this. Let me look at another example of William Branum claiming divine inspiration, John, for things he copied from other people.

And serpent seeds, another really good example. We talked about where that came from in prior episodes in a lot of detail. You can go back and listen to those episodes. But William Branum told us he got serpent seed as a divine revelation from God.

And let me read you a quote to that effect. This is from The Rising of the Sun, 19... Sixty-five, William Brandham said, We've enjoyed these blessings, a hearing those mysteries, serpent seed, and all these different questions has been completely revealed to us, not by man, but by God himself.

Revealed by God himself, divine revelation, not from him. But John, we went through extensive episode showing where serpent seed was believed by many people before William Brandham was even born. And we shared conclusive evidence that William Brandham learned serpent seed from his white supremacist buddies.

William Brandham, he first preached serpent seed in 1958, which of course we have solid evidence actually that he was preaching it at least since 1950. You can find mentions of it in his sermons.

He slips it in here and there all the way back at least in 1950. But serpent seed was also being taught at North Battleford, right? It was at the very heart of the latter reign movement.

Wesley Swift was preaching it in the Christian identity movement, you know, before William Brandham was preaching it. And in here's a book from 1957, John. I think I've got it. Is that held the right way?

There we go. From 1957. Okay, William Brandham preached serpent seed in 1957. In 1958, here's a book from 1957 entitled, Kane, the son of the serpent, published in 1957. Let me just give you a show you the date on it even.

All right. 1957, see? So we have overwhelming evidence that William Brandham was not the first person preaching serpent seed. And if you take time to compare out all the different versions, very sadly, this is the version of serpent seed.

William Brandham was preaching this evil version. This evil version was what he was preaching. He is source was the racist version. When you actually sit down and look at these things and William Brandham was admitting on tape even that this kind of stuff was being taught in Roy Davis's church when he was in Roy Davis's church.

If you go listen back to his quotes on tape. So, you know, when you realize William Brandham was by no means the first person preaching serpent seed, John, that just left in me a very disturbing question.

Why did William Brandham mislead us? To say he was getting serpent seed from God, right? And again, if you're in the message, you don't gotta argue right here, whether it's right or wrong, you can set that aside.

But focus like a laser on the main point here. William Brandham told us he got this in divine revelation from God. He was lying to us about that. I mentioned earlier that there's really only one of two possibilities.

Either William Brandham was a complete imbecile or it was strategic when you think of the contradictions. Well, serpent seed has yet another in the long list of things that has persuaded me that there was a strategy that he...

was not an imbecil. Serpent seed is one of the biggest ones because remember William Brannum officially announced that he believed it to the public right at the same time that Roy Davis is launching his sect of the third wave of the Ku Klux Klan.

And this was a white supremacy doctrine. William Brannum strategically pulled out the race from what he called Serpent seed, introduced it to the people, got wide acceptance of Serpent seed in the people. Then he brought in later his high breeding doctrine, the combination of which strategically is Wesley Swift's Christian identity doctrine.

When you take high breeding doctrine and Serpent seed, combine them, you get Christian identity. This was strategic. And William Brannum said he learned it from God, but Roy Davis is not God. And George the Ark was not God.

And George Warnock was not God. And Wesley Swift was not God, but William Brannum said he learned this stuff from God. That's evil, John. That is evil. And the thing about all of this, even if you go ahead and you keep believing some of the message doctrines,

prophetic words from William Brannum can no longer be viewed as the source of authority for those doctrines anymore, right? Because it's undeniable that William Brannum was absolutely misleading us about how he learned all of this stuff.

I have here a copy of Charles Russell's book, The Finished Mystery. And Charles Russell is the founder of the Jehovah Witnesses. And now William Brannum's next door neighbor was Banks Woods.

And his wife was a Jehovah's Witness. And she is the one who gave William Brannum to his Jehovah's Witness literature. And Charles Russell, who wrote that literature, was a man who had been deeply influenced by Adventist theology, by pyramidology, and by elements of British Israelism, okay?

That's why Jehovah Witnesses believe they're the 144,000 for example. That's why he's buried under a pyramid grave, okay? And like the message, the Jehovah Witnesses have a lot of remnants of British Israelism in their teachings.

So the teachings in Charles takes Russell's books are not even entirely original to him, but Charles Russell was one of the conduits for passing these ideas to William Brannum, okay? Via Banks Woods' wife.

And the Jehovah Witnesses back then believe that Charles Russell was the seventh church age messenger to Leodicea, and that Charles Russell was the angel of Revelation 107, and that the Jehovah Witness message was the voice of Revelation 107, okay?

So all the things that we believe about Revelation 107 and the mess, even the Peruzia doctrine, like from Leavale Sec. That was all imported into the message from old school Jehovah Witness beliefs, all of it.

And William Brown unpicked it up from Charles Russell. And Charles Russell got the ideas from Adventism and Adventism got the ideas from William Miller and from British Visualism, right? That's where the belief sets come from.

You can trace all of it out. It's all well documented in the only people outside of the message who believe in a seventh church age messenger and who believe Revelation 10.7, the way that the message does, are the old school Jehovah Witnesses and the historic British Israel groups like the House of David cult or like the branch Davidians in Waco.

Hey, everybody knows them, right? So those are the only other people who believe that stuff. And William Brown, what he did, is he just changed the name Charles Russell to his own name. He borrowed their teachings.

He just took Charles Russell. He widened his name out of the descriptions of Revelation 10.7 and that commentary. And he inserts himself in his message into that spot. And so that is just one of many Jehovah Witness teachings that was imported into the message.

And so the message has a very deep Jehovah Witness influence. And the Jehovah Witness piece is, I think what a lot of people miss when they analyze message teachings. And a lot of the missing pieces that you won't find in Clarence Larkin's book or your right Smith's books or the other books, those pieces are in large part in the Jehovah Witness literature that William Brannum had.

What's really funny, Charles, to the theologians who are interested in the religious history who are listening to this podcast, their heads will explode whenever they learn, William Brannum was plagiarizing Charles Tay's Russell in this whole laterane movement.

And all of these many ministries, these empires, these religious empires that base their theology on William Brannum are basing it on Charles Tay's Russell and the Watchtower Society. Their heads will explode. But what's really funny is, Charles the message believer who are curious and they're listening to this, their heads will not explode because they've actually been manipulated to think that this is a good thing.

William Brannum furthered the doctrines of this destructive cult leader and pick and chose the truth. But where their heads will explode, you and I have talked about this before. I heard it from one source and you heard it from another source.

And I've actually heard it from multiple sources that William Brannum actually got his sermon notes from Banks Woods' wife. She would actually prepare entire sermons for him, which if you take a step back, here's this guy who's hearing these things from an alleged angel and this angel's pres— venting God's divine truth to the people.

Well, when you realize, wait a minute, that angel was a bank's woods wife, message heads will explode, Charles. I know, John. And you know, it's not just those witnesses that we talk to privately that told us the stuff.

If you actually listen to men like Gordon Lindsay, men like Joseph Mattenboze, people like Jack Moore and Jack Moore's daughter and different people who knew what was going on in those years, you'll hear a lot of them say that William Brannum had came under the control or the influence of a small number of people in his inner circle.

And when they say that, this is who they're talking about, right? They're talking about these people who are feeding, started feeding him these things and he starts preaching this stuff as his sermons, right?

That's exactly what they're talking about, right? And they actually, you'll listen to the mic. I could pull out quotes where they basically blame other people for tricking, supposedly tricking William Brannum into preaching all of this stuff.

Now, I don't think I agree with their analysis, but I just say that to bear witness that this was a well-known thing among a group of people in that day. And I think that they bear witness also that William Brannum was definitely getting this stuff from other people and they knew it too.

I personally don't agree with that. People who think that these small handful of people were controlling and manipulating William Brannum. I don't agree with it. And when you take a step back and you look at the broader picture, William Brannum's ministry shifted significantly, not a small bit, but significantly.

When Roy Davis began his third wave of the clan, there's some question that has been posed and I won't say my opinion yet on this, but whether or not William Brannum was actually giving hidden messages to ranking members of the clan in his sermons, because his sermons get really walky, if you think about post-1963, when the heart of this thing is going on.

But just take all of that aside, ignore all of the conspiracy theory and just take the substance of it. Here is Bankswood's wife, and she's writing these sermon notes and other people writing these sermon notes and Gordon Lindsay, this man who's has this religious empire, he's looking at these people thinking, who are these guys?

Why are they writing William Brannum sermons? It's something else, John. And you know, if our listeners go back and start looking into Jehovah Witness literature to try in and find some of these things, I just want to say that Jehovah Witnesses believe have evolved a lot since this period job.

Witness beliefs are very shifty. And so you got to go back to the Jehovah Witness literature from that period of time. This stuff is not in their modern literature. You got to definitely go back to their older school beliefs.

But if you do. You will definitely find the interpretation of Revelation 107 and all kinds of other things are coming out of old school early day Jehovah witness beliefs and John there is just so many many things we could talk about you know I know one thing I was study died was surprised when I looked through a lot of the research was that William Brannum had even copied some of his evangelistic sermons the Eagle Sturth his nest was copied from C from from C. L. Franklin Which is way a very famous message sermon right which we won't we won't dive into it but

That's the sermon where a lot of the eagle imagery comes into the message is about the eagle that lives at the chicken coop William Brannum copied all of that from C. L. Franklin the whole sermon all the imagery right and Eagles are a huge symbol in the message that are just Uber important to the message you cannot understand how important Eagle imagery is in the message William Brannum was the great eagle basically and in a lot of the You know, he was the Eagle prophet and so forth, but that was all copied too, okay?

Thinking man's filter was copied from Billy Graham the greatest battle ever fought was copied part of it was from Richard Nixon for goodness sake, so John we could take hours and hours and hours and just show where William Brannum pieced all of his sermons together from and I hope at some point in the future we can do maybe a Q&A episode for our listeners and If you guys got any questions about where anything comes from yes, just shoot in the question And maybe in our Q&A episode we can point you to where the stuff comes from because I I can probably answer just about any doctor

When you come up with I can tell you just about where it came from, you know, and so we've hit the highlights here I'm hesitant to put out questions now We'll get this on slot of questions before we get to it But I'll go ahead if you want to submit them you can submit them on William-brannum.org on the contact button Just tell us at the top of your message that these are questions you'd like to address in some future episode But the ones that you mentioned Charles the thinking man's filter and the Ego-sturther nest sermon these sermons

These were widely popular Ego-sturther nest was Instantly a hit and it spread, you know quickly throughout the evangelical circles and This was strategic not in that he was lifting a doctrine from Franklin so much as he was taking that name So when people tried to buy the sermon or whatever they would see William-brannum sermon along with CL Franklin if you You know if you said, hey, do you have this the Ego-sturther nest?

Some some person who's selling these recordings might have William-brannum So, you know, it's just so weird when you think about the strategy that went behind William-brannum's self-promotion But like you this There's so many things that we could cover that he pledged rise because I've come to the conclusion not a single Goal thought, William Brannum claimed divine revelation on not one actually came from himself.

It all came from some other source, some other book, some other minister, some person who's preaching who is a contemporary of William Brannum, like the Eagle Star of their nest as a contemporary. These men had their original thought and William Brannum took it and ran with it.

As we rack this episode up, John, it's hard for me to express just how personally devastating the things in this episode are to me. Because once you look behind the curtain, you can never unsee what is back there.

When we have looked behind the curtain in this episode, the last episode too, we can see how William Brannum was really getting his so-called revelations. There was absolutely nothing supernatural about it. He was just compiling his sermons out of the books in his library.

And I just don't even have the right words to explain how that makes me feel, right? You know, even to this day, I feel utterly betrayed by William Brannum. And I still just wonder how could William Brannum do this to us?

You know, we loved him. He was God's prophet. You know, the message meant everything to me. I would have died for the message. I would have done anything for the message. My entire life, I did it.

Decades of my life devoted to this message. And I did it well, John. I did it well. The message don't have no rap sheet on me. There's no rap sheet they can use against me, John, because I lived it better than most of them do.

And they know it, you know, but to find out that these angelic visions and visitations and supernatural experiences that William Brannum was having, to find out those things was really just a hoax. To find out, William Brannum was deceiving us about getting all that stuff from God.

It is the most sickening, disgusting thing I have ever experienced in my life. And it is a total betrayal by William Brannum and a total abuse of the people. And I'll say one last time to the people out there, and especially the message preachers who still want to go on and say that William Brannum had unique and original teachings, you have not looked hard enough.

Yeah. You know, like you, Charles, I believed this hook, line, and sinker, while all of the other message kids in my circles, and I, you know, I went from churches from Arizona to South Carolina, while all the other kids are doing kid things, and many of them are doing things that we weren't allowed to do in the message.

And seriously, these people, some of them became ministers. And they, they, I grew up with them. They were doing things that I was not allowed to do. But more than that, I didn't want to do because my quote unquote profit told me not to.

They were doing it. I did not. I dissipate in a lot of those things because Charles my way of entertaining myself and I did it in School in between classes. I did it in my car on the way home from school. I did it at night I did it in the morning. I listened to these recordings because Charles the end of the world was coming This was the voice that was the voice of God. That's how it's presented the voice of God these spoken word For me in the last days that's giving me my instructions on how to leave this world and go into the next

Why would I want to do all these things that all these other people who became ministers are doing in this cult? I didn't I didn't want to I did not want to be like the quote unquote world While a lot of them did a Lot of them really really did But still for me the the thing that you know I too I am just I'm shocked that this all of this was copied and but more to the point I'm intrigued because it was strategic and One of my favorite games growing up whenever I did entertain myself with quote unquote worldly things was this

This game called risk is this battle of you know You your opponent has a board game your opponent is trying to conquer the world and you've got all these little pieces and Strategies and other one of my favorites these games of strategy and That's how I grew up. I thought Strategically and strategically for me to get to the other side out of this world into the next It was a strategy to listen to these sermons because that's how I was manipulated Now that I'm away from this and I see the manipulation in these recordings and I am a

Strategist I love strategy You can go back through the timeline and you can pick out the strategies that William Brannum used to Make any doctrine accepted and it might be conflicting with his other doctrine You can see how he did it. It was very strategic For me this whole thing is just fascinating and And you know like you said there's way too much for us to cover If we were to do all of the pleasure isms that we've identified so far Charles we might be old men But we've got to take it as many years as William Brannum took to preach to begin with

Exactly So we've got into somewhere and if you've enjoyed our show and you want more information You can check us out on the web. You can find us at William-brannum.org and Christian Gospel Church.org For an overview of the historical research of William Brannum in the healing revivals Read preacher behind the white hoods a critical examination of William Brannum and his message Available on Amazon Kindle and Audible Join us again next week We've got a great episode coming.

We've got a great episode coming. We've got a great episode coming.