Our Stories: An Interview With John McKinnon - Part 2

Music Hello and welcome to another episode of the William Branham Historical Research Podcast. I'm your host, John Collins, the author and founder of William Branham Historical Research at William-Branham.org, and with me I have my very special guest, John McKinnon, researcher, author, and former message believer, and as we discussed last week, about five years, a very critical component to William Branham and the historical research that we've put together on the website. Last week we covered a large portion of the podcast was about William Branham's connection to very sinister figures in the revivals, including white supremacy leaders and all of that backstory. But this week we're getting into the doctrinal issues

and as I said last week, I'm extremely excited to get into this with you. So, John, if you could tell anybody who didn't here last week a little bit about yourself and let's dive into some doctrinal issues that surround the message of William Branham. Thank you, John. It's good to be here again and do another one of these episodes with you. Yeah, I would say that, you know, doctrine matters to me and truth matters to me. It's always mattered. Ever since I became a Christian back in 1985, you know, I was searching for truth. I would say it was, you know, very much a novice in

the scriptures. I didn't know a lot except I knew that Jesus died for me. But when I went to college in 1985, you know, I was a new Christian and I encountered multiple groups. I ended up as I wanted more truth. I ended up migrating to the charismatic ranks that were their college, you know, and it seemed to be a wonderful thing. And a lot of the things I'm embracing today, I actually actually stopped listening to when I was in college because I felt like, well, if they're not going to allow for gifts to the spirit or whatever, then I'm not going to listen to them.

But I come to find out after, you know, 30, 40 years, you know, I've kind of mellowed out a little bit and I can embrace as long as a person is preaching truth. There might be some things I can't agree with them on. But if there's, if they're preaching truth, you know, there's a lot of things I can race we can agree upon, especially the key things.

So, anyway, by 1986, I had encountered the message, and since I had studied a little bit about the Catholic Church, and I've been reading chick publications, I guess if you knew about that organization, how hard they are on the Catholic Church, so I fell right in line.

It just kind of fell into place with me, and I felt like, well, this is the word, and with no research tools at the time, with no internet, you know, you can imagine there's no way to find out any other thing other than what people are telling you, the resources that you have available that you can buy, the tapes, and everybody you can talk to that may have even heard about William Brownham, that's all you have.

And there was no one that could tell me, and show me by the scriptures that what he was saying was wrong, because, you know, William Brownham had a way about him, because none of these doctrines that he preached were unique, you know, baptism in the name of Jesus Christ is not unique to him.

That was already going on, and he was, Roy Davis was doing that before they met in his church. So a lot of people like to think that some of the things he preached was very unique, he had a revelation from God, and then they see it in the Bible, they said, oh, he was all the way with that revelation, well, no, it was already being done.

So that's true on the majority, if not all of his revelations, and especially, I guess I can make mention of it right now, the great revelation of the Seven Seals, we learned that that was Clarence Larkin's revelation.

Absolutely. Yes, all he did was repeat, maybe with a little here and a little there from other sources, all he did was repeat that and call it a revelation from angels from heaven that came to him day by day to tell him what was the truth.

So we find that, you know, doctrines that he preached was really not unique, but at the time, with no investigative research tools, without a lot of pain, staking going to libraries and so forth, you're as too busy to do that, you just have to take a face value of what people are telling you.

So yeah, and so as I, that's why you've stayed with the message for so many years until you begin researching it on your own, but as I began to minister, say, around 2010, you know, my first few messages were staying dead on with the messages preaching, you know, a lot of quotes doing that.

But then as I, as you study salvation and what, what, what, what do you really believe? You know, you realize that the way you have to approach salvation is this three-stage approach. Well, you know, that, how do you know what stage you're in?

You know, and if you have to be fully sanctified before... It can even receive the Holy Spirit. How do you know when you get there? So a lot of that began not to make sense anymore.

And so it got me really thinking. But I wrote this book because of all the many things that I had come across that I felt I needed to be told so that people could study it on their own.

I didn't write this as a definitive tell-all-be-all book, so just so that hopefully it was spurred people onto further study so they can discover on their own what the Word is saying, and then compare it truly with what William Brown said.

So in the very first chapter in that book, you know, if you, in Jude 3, were exhorted by the scripture to write that we earnestly contend for the faith that was delivered once into the saints.

So that earnestly contend, we need to fight with all this in us to contend. So, you know, my question would be why do message ministers, why do churches have a problem with you being like a Berean and going after the scripture and saying, let's find out what it says.

And let's compare it to what our ministers are telling us. That's what we need to do. And that's what I encourage all message believers to do is take what the minister is saying and compare it with scripture.

And take what the message says to compare it with scripture. And then I think I'm only earnestly contending, I'm only doing what the Bible says, earnestly contending for the faith. Because, you know, for Brother Brown to say, well, what the apostles had in their day does not work in this day.

That's a pretty bold claim, you know, because what he's telling you is that my word is the only thing that's gonna work in this day. My message is the only thing that's gonna work to get you into the rapture for salvation, to really believe you have the Holy Spirit is to believe my message.

He just threw away 2,000 years of church history there when he said the word of the apostles will not work in this day. What is he really talking about there? So that's really bothersome.

And basically, Brother Brown's message is upends Orthodox Christianity and turns it on his head. Because he ignores, he gives lip service to prior ministers like Martin Luther. But he's only, he has never scratched the surface about what Martin Luther was all about, about what he came out of, what he preached.

Because sure, Martin Luther was not 100% correct. But a lot of things Martin Luther said and did were absolutely correct. So you have to take, like you do any minister, what do Martin Luther say, compare it with scripture.

But that's all I figure I'm doing in this book. Absolutely. And for our listeners who are on the audio only feeds, the book is, defending the truth, comparing William Brannum's doctrine with scripture. And what what John McKinnon is describing here, there are multiple ways in which to study doctrine and scripture and for the casual person who is just attending church and wanting to learn more about God, you just simply read for yourself and you read and study.

But for those who are trapped in a religion that you question, well this might be destructive or this might be occult, there are different approaches to it. One is like John said and like the book says, comparisons. So you compare what is the theology that I'm being taught with what is somebody else who we know has sound doctrine or even just going back to the source.

What is being taught, how do I compare that with the Bible? Sometimes that's difficult for people because that approach takes a lot of Bible reading and studying. You can find summaries on I think Bible Gateway has some good study tools. You can find some sources that help you with this.

But then the one that the approach that I take, which is critical examination, it's even deeper than this and I get accused of hatred because of this they say you hate William Brannum, but they don't understand the process and the process of critical examination is that you study other people who you know are the villains to Christianity and you understand what it is they're teaching what is their framework, their foundation.

And you go back into the comparison by comparing, okay, here's something that we know as faults and here's the fruits of that false doctrine. And here is the, in my case it was William Brannum for you, it might be some other cult leader.

Here's the doctrine taught by the person that trained me, how does it compare with this evil doctrine? And in the case of Brannum as you know, almost every bad theology that you can study, you're going to find traces of it in the message.

And yet many of these things were taught as though they were the original truth. I'll let you get back into your critique of the salvation in just a bit. But for me, the key element to all of this, it was the foundational doctrine.

If you study what William Brannum called Serpent Seed, Brannum claims to have introduced this as a divine revelation from God and the ministers who were in the religion, they tout this as never heard before doctrine.

The doctrine, William Brannum introduced it by his angel or whatever is the thing that they say. And it came around 19, what was the date on that, 1958? Well, even William Brannum himself says that he...

heard it in the church of the white supremacist leader, Roy E. Davis. And so he heard it before this. It's the two seed or the dual seed doctrine. And William Brannum himself years before mentioned the seed.

And he's talking about the two seed doctrine. So even when he introduces it as a quote unquote new revelation, he had already had this alleged revelation and it came from white supremacy. So I began studying this doctrine in the early years.

And you find that Irenaeus, who William Brannum claimed was, you mentioned the seven church ages and the seven seals, Irenaeus Brannum claimed to have brought the original divine truth for as a church age.

He was a dispensationalist. And one of the things that Irenaeus condemned in his book or series called Against Heresies, he was condemning Gnosticism and Jewish mysticism as heresy. And he says, the bringing forth the heresy that the serpent and the garden of Eden made it with Eve.

And I can't remember the exact phrase he used. But the very first Christian apologist, an apologist is somebody who's defending the Christian faith. The very first Christian apologist declared this as heresy centuries ago.

And the idea that William Brannum brought it new simply by studying other people with false doctrines and false teachings, you can find this woven all throughout white supremacy. One of the earliest, you know, this, this dates all the way back to centuries ago.

But one of the earliest in America is through Russell Kelso Carter. He published a book called The Tree of Knowledge in the Year, I believe it was 1894. And in the book, he talks about the serpent having sex with Eve and this was the original sin.

Well, this developed into what is called Christian identity. And if you study that theme of the framework that was laid by Christian identity, you find this thing that William Brannum is teaching and bringing forth as, quote unquote, divine revelation is what led to the race riots and led to the some very dark chapters in American history.

So the point I'm building up to is if you are studying the message for various different reasons, there's very different, very different approaches to scriptural study. And the one that I recommend for somebody who's looking at a critical analysis is to study the bad guys.

You want to know what are the bad guys saying? Okay, how does that relate back to William Brannum and what he is saying? And you'll find in many cases, it's the same exact thing.

It's the same foundation. And with that, I'll let you get back into the study of the... elevation aspect. Yeah, I'll get back to that, but that's absolutely true. You know, everyone needs to approach, study with an open mind.

You know, you don't need to close yourself off and that's what message believers tend to do is they will not study anything on the opposite side. And without that broad picture, you know, you're only confined to that one thing and you're hearing the one voice and you don't know where these things come from.

So John, that's absolutely true. You really have to go to a variety of sources to really find the absolute truth of it or where it comes from, you know, where it's leading to. And that's how that deception is so great because people aren't willing to do that.

They're just in their minds, they can't, it's that cognitive distance that you talk about. They just can't go there. Their mind will let them go there because they're in fear. But it's funny, you mentioned about Irenaeus because there is one chapter in my book.

I call it the doctrine of the church age prophets, yes, in chapter nine. And I point out, there's many times Brother Brannum would change his mind after he's preached something. He would go back and change his mind and make it totally different.

One example you brought out many years ago was, he said there were five angels in the vision and serves what is the time or, you know, yes. And then a few days later, he sort of changed it to five, maybe seven, and then finally it became seven because evidently somebody either leave mail or whoever came to him and said, you know, five doesn't mean them, doesn't match the number you need.

You need seven. And so he just, you know, casually put that in there and then finally it became seven. But he was very clear in the beginning. It was five. He counted them one, you know, in a pyramid shape and it was five.

So things like that. So the church age prophets is very similar when he preached the seals, I believe, and I put this in the book. I put his quotes in there about, he says, the seven church ages, messengers were prophets, you know, because of course, Paul, he said was a prophet.

He was a prophet. So while the rest of them had to be prophets. And the very next day, he comes back and says, no, they were not prophets. They were only reformers because, because of course, somebody must have pointed out to him, well, look at all the different doctors they were preaching.

And it's not what you're preaching. So you can't say they're prophets because the word of the Lord comes to the prophet, right? So that's another example of how he changes mind on things. So a funny story I have to tell.

It wasn't me that found the five angels. What I do takes a lot of time. I can't tell you the sheer number of hours that I've been doing this. But they're a task that a repetitive.

And when I first began this, I was having my wife help out because it was just overwhelming. There's so many things to go through. And we wanted to combine, we wanted to compile a spreadsheet of the things that William Brandham said using the phrase, thus say at the Lord, doctorally speaking, you must understand this if you came from the message because that statement means, thus say at the Lord means God is now about to speak through me and what I'm about to say to you is prophecy.

And William Brandham said it so many times that it became, for people who were in the message, they don't even regard it as prophecy. They just say this was doctrinal teaching and it may, what are they called, progressive revelation.

It may mature over time. No, no, no. When he says this, this means God is about to speak and God knows there is no progressive revelation with God. God knows already. And my wife was compiling this list and the problem we ran into is that I can't remember how many thousand she hit before she said, I can't keep doing this.

There are thousands of these quotes and I had to do one pass, I was going to have her just list them out, you know, what are the tape indexes. And then I realized when there's so many, well, we need the actual quote that goes with it so that I can say, you know, examine this and she said, I'm done.

There's too much of this. But while going through this process, she discovered that he said five angels and then she came to me, I'll never forget I was downstairs, my other office used to be in another room over there.

And I was studying and she says, he introduced two angels and I was like, what? Well, she put together this little timeline and I had it on the other, the old website and the YouTube site they got taken down.

But she realized very quickly that he was not only changing his dust, say, the Lord phrases. He was also changing spiritual aspects of his ministry. And it's very problematic when you, anybody who wants to see was this guy a false prophet or not, just examine the things that he said, dust, say, the Lord and compare them with each other because they don't match.

They are, they're the, say, the Lord, a, dust, say, the Lord, z, I mean, a polar opposite, right? And that's the exercise that we went through to, to come up with this five to seven angels.

So something else I wanted to say, John was, you know, if a person is a prophet, you know, you got Leo and Jean making the tapes and possibly doing some edits on those tapes.

To keep out certain things. Well, there's other portions that, when a person says, dust, say, if the Lord, you would expect it. That's God's speaking. And then for him to get to the pulpit there in 1960, I believe it was when he's preaching condemnation.

by representation maybe. And he talks about I'm reading from this paper 1932 and he's referring to these prophecies that he had 1932 or three. And he says, well, we're going to take these prophecies and hand them over to Leo and have him revise them and bring them up to date.

You're right. Well, you know, bring your prophecies up to date. I mean, are you going to rewrite them? You know, and that's for him to say that on tape and for that to be captured and nobody to edit that out. I mean, that says a lot of people. You can't just brush that over and forget about it. He's talking about actually changing the prophecies. And then when you go to study those seven prophecies and you see how they've changed over time from what he said about Franklin Roosevelt to the time it made it in the church age book and now he mentions Hitler as the one is totally changed. And then

I think believe the sign and you may have pointed out that those seven prophecies became 11 prophecies. So it's they're kind of all over the place. So you wonder, you know, is God really speaking or is, you know, what's happening there? So there's some strange things going on. And I think that people really need to take heed to that because, you know, thus say if the Lord is pretty serious statement. And like you said, he said it over a thousand times, I believe. So, you know, I put some of that in my book as well. And so, you know, getting back to my book,

the first couple of chapters, chapter one and chapter two, I wasn't planning to put those in there. But I kind of thought back, you know, I'll just throw something in there about water baptism and about, you know, the Godhead real quickly. And I wrote those chapters very quickly, kind of hurriedly. And I just typed them out the top of my head basically. I looked up a few things on the internet that throw in there. But I didn't, I won't try to define what the doctrine should be.

I was just trying to say, here is what, you know, Trinitarians is saying, here's what one does the same. Now you go study on your own and you figure out, you know, you know, figure out what you want to believe about the Godhead. Because really, you know, William Brownham would take like the Trinitarians and accuse them of things they weren't guilty of. He accused them of believing in three gods over and over again. So in our heads as message believers, that's what we think Trinitarianism is, is three beans or three gods. Well, that's not what it is at all. And really the Godhead

is a very complicated subject. It took hundreds of years to even develop a statement on it. So that's how complicated it is to even define, you know, the Godhead of Scripture. And in fact, our human knowledge is incapable of doing it, you know, adequately, but we do it the best we can. And that's really all I was trying to point out in this chapter. So I know there's some going to be offended, but I already have one person offended at how I wrote the chapter.

But I want to write and say, the Trinity is correct or oneness is correct. I was writing it and saying, here's what they're saying. Here's what William Brownham said. William Brownham even endorsed Trinity early on saying the Holy Spirit was the third person of the Trinity.

So if you don't really know what the doctrine is really saying and how they stated it, it's easy to make accusations, easy to make quick conclusions that are really unfounded. So really your foundation is pretty shaky and that's why I wrote that so people would be encouraged to go back and study.

The second chapter was on water baptism and my conclusion on that is that, you know, ever how you're baptized, as long as you're coming on the basis of your belief in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross and that he forgave your sins and you're repenting, the act of baptism is not the words that you say, it's the act of baptism.

You're coming on the authority that Jesus gave you to be baptized after you professed faith in Jesus Christ. So it's really up to the person if they want to be baptized in the name of Father Son, Holy Spirit, that's fine.

They want to be baptized in the name, that's fine too. Whatever your conscience is telling you to do, you can do it. But I'm not going to condemn the thousands and millions of Christians that are baptized in the name of Father Son and Holy Spirit.

William Brannum had a way of taking things like that and making such an issue of them that he would, in his sermons, if you listen to his sermons a lot of times he will go back to those things.

He'll go back to Trinity, he'll go back to water baptism as a way of condemning everybody else so that you can believe his message is the truth. Those are the only two things he usually points to, that and probably the holiness of dress standards.

So really, in the end, it's up to the candidate being baptized. Okay, I want to be baptized using the titles, Father Son, Holy Spirit, or I want to be baptized using the name. So that's really the ultimate thing of that thought.

Again, I'm not telling you what is the truth, I'm telling you, you know, use your conscience as a guide, study the scriptures, and come to your own conclusion. You know, it's odd because I'm one of the few message believers that actually read the Bible and I read it over and over constantly.

I didn't until after I read left the message, I didn't read it from cover to cover. After I left the message, I did this, I lost count as probably 10 or 15 times. But in the message, I read it continually, every night, every day, during the day.

And what's really odd is that, like you said, William Bramham said some very false things about the people that were his target of hatred. And he was heavily against the Catholic Church. is that was a white supremacy agenda.

And he was against Trinitarianism because he was saying that was part of what came out of the Catholic church. Yet like you said, he himself was supporting the Trinity. And the funny part for me is I believed what most Trinitarians believed while it was in the message.

And yet I condemned them if they said they were Trinitarian. I'll never forget getting in one of my first jobs as I think I was 16 years old. I got in a very heated argument with this another 16 year old who was defending the Trinity.

And he was describing what God was using actual Bible verses. I was describing how he was wrong using my set of Bible verses and the conclusions both equaled each other. And then at the end, I'm like, I don't get it.

You're still wrong because you're Trinitarian. But I believe that there were three gods and that the three gods were one because that's what William Brandham said on specific recordings. And I had my favorite recordings.

And so I had not yet identified the ones where he said, where he openly said I, or he says we who have accepted the persons of the Trinity. He says this, instead I had read the ones where he said anybody who has accepted the persons of the Trinity, he alludes that they've taken the mark of the beast.

So for me, I could never have reconciled that he accepted it and it was the mark of the beast. The conclusion is that he accepted the mark of the beast. I could never go with this.

And what's really funny about all of this, the point I'm leading up to, when I began publishing the more recent critical information, we began working with many Pentecostal historians and ministers who were involved in the ministry of William Brandham and the collective movement that was at that time called the message, which was different than the message I grew up in.

And as you know, there was this point at which many Pentecostals severed their ties to Brandham. And not just one, but multiple ministers have told me that the reason for this is that William Brandham in the late 1940s, early 1950s, he had no issue going into a trainitarian church and baptizing people, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, then going to a Pentecostal oneness church and condemning people who did this.

So the people who traveled with him from roadshow to roadshow, they would watch him just blast the trainitarians and anybody who says the word person, then he himself is apparently, according to these people, baptizing in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

And the oneness people, they said, no, we can't deal with this because this is a dividing line in Christianity. You either believe one thing. side or the other, you cannot believe both. Yes. So the next book I want to write is on the Godhead itself and and and show that, you know, there is one statement he makes some and at some point say in, you know, about the word not working for this day of the Apostles, and he says, we have something different. So as I was saying, in the last podcast, you know, a lot of those doctrines are not different than some group out there's

using them. But when he when he's going to the Godhead, that's where you see the difference. And basically, he's ostracized himself from Trinity and oneness altogether because he he sat over and over again, I'm not oneness.

And when you really study about what he believes about the Godhead, you realize he's really not oneness, what they really believe. And then another statement he made was eventually which ostracized him altogether from the Trinitarian side was that Trinitarianism is off the devil and he concluded that with thus they have the Lord. So that's pretty strong. But you know, the way I look at things now is as I've studied this, you know, there's a lot of truth in what the if you really read about Trinitarian doctrine, you know, it's really not much different than oneness because I don't believe in

three beans. The actual the actual wording uses essence, you know, they're it's the same essence. You can't see God is that spirit. So you don't see Father Son, Holy Spirit in that essence. But yet they are there in the fact that God has a role as father. He has a role as word or son. And then the Holy Spirit has a role. And and so that's and there's more to it than that. But that's kind of simplified. But yeah, that's they don't believe in three gods for sure.

So and also another point I'll make is that as far as brother brand on mod put the dividing line of water baptism and Trinitarianism has been if you can't accept what I believe than you you're not with me. But and you're not in the bride, for instance, you don't have what we have. That's something different.

But when you look at the logic of that, all the millions of Christians out out through the ages believe different things. And today I find many Christians and all these organizations that are good people, their Christians. So God is not going to not let them be a part of the bride because they didn't baptize the exact same way that the message baptizes. You know, they're part of the bride as much as the message is if if messages at all. So so I'm not divisive.

I'm more or less drawn to circle around my brothers, you know, once again, you know, whereas in the message, I would have my distance from them and keep my distance down. I'm not that way anymore. You know, I can fellowship with them once again. It's a great feeling.

It's a freedom when you get there. It's such a freedom that you feel Man, you're giving people grace Like I heard in your last podcast. It's John Baer In your last podcast. He says you got to give yourself some grace And that's what the gospel does. It's a gospel of grace Right, and mercy And so we're not quick to condemn others because they're not dressing to the standard We think they're there's supposed to be dressed as or you know, they're Have to be led by the Holy Spirit the same way we do we may have come further along

But they're still my brother and sister in Christ if they're trusting Christ So so yeah, uh, we all need to draw our circle a little bigger than we've had it in the past So this is kind of leading into the next little subject here in my book. This is chapter four But um if if people don't realize it in in the sardis church age if you read the sardis church age you'll find This continuum of salvation. I call it And it almost puts William Brannum's belief into universal universalism It almost is like everybody can be saved in the end

Even though they didn't they didn't believe in Jesus Christ. They didn't accept the gospel They're going to be saved in the end because the way he he puts this is that He puts as a salvation for the bride There's a salvation for the You know the non-Elect I guess the foolish version And he even goes so far as to say this Is their salvation for those that never believed in Christ never heard the gospel But they may have gave a cup of cold water To a bride they were good to the bride good to the brethren

He's now taking the uh belief in the gospel out of the picture Is that well you really don't have to believe the gospel anymore now all you have to do is Do something good for the bride So if you can find a bride member and I can give them some money I can help them do this or help them do that God's going to see that in the end and grant me access into heaven Uh, and that's totally different from the word of God and what it says now you're You're you're opening the door even wider

And so if you read the sardis church age you'll find that so I I point that out in my my book your He's got a continuum of salvation. It's not found in scripture It's interesting because we I've started a new series with Steve Montgomery and we're talking about the influences of Nosticism esoteric Beliefs all of the different pagan ideas that Converged into what he calls the converging apostasy And one of the key figures that we have introduced into our research ironically is Alistair Crowley and You know, I said at the beginning of this podcast if you want to understand

The pure evil that is in your doctrine study the bad guys Well Alistair Crowley is a person that I have extensively studied believe it or not I don't talk about it much because people would freak out.

This is the man who they claim was purely, he was the devil's representative some will say. But he published this book that was called The Book of the Law and he essentially was founding a new religion and quote unquote new, I should say.

He was just merging all of these esoteric, these gnostic ideas, Jewish mysticism, creating something that was so outlandish that it gained him popularity in, in my opinion, just he was out for money. But in The Book of the Law, the final statement is there is no law beyond do what thou wilt.

And if you think about William Brandham's doctrine of, like, like his doctrine, be kind of the bride. This doctrine simply states that these people can do whatever it is that they want. They can be, they can accept Jesus or not.

But if they're kind to the bride, they'll have a place in heaven. In other words, William Brandham says very clearly, do what thou wilt, which goes all the way back to Alistair Crowley. And I recently have, I recently started publishing some of the thoughts that I have collected about Alistair Crowley while working with Steve, but there is now a page on my website of Alistair Crowley.

And specifically, I'm looking at the Christian identity framework that William Brandham used for his serpent seed doctrine and his, what did he call it, celestial being, celestial bodies. William Brandham had this very, very heretical teaching that we in the human form have a celestial being, a celestial body out there, right?

And when the UFO craze hit, he says that basically there's, he said, one of these days this UFO will sweep down and take us into heaven. That's how the rapture will be, he says, well, when you compare the thoughts that William Brandham has about how these celestial bodies work, in fact, I'll just read you a quote.

He's talking on mother, at Mother's Day, he's saying, and when I think of them standing yonder our loved ones, our mothers, kindreds, our friends, to see them in their immortal bodies, their celestial bodies watching their character, seeing how they conduct themselves with that sweetness and quietness, to see them standing in the likeness of the Lord Jesus.

The celestial being, the celestial body was a key concept for Brandham's manifested sons of God. And if you think of, so Aleister Crowley in the book of the law, he says, the unveiling company of heaven, every man and every woman is a star, in other words, they're a celestial body.

When you compare the teachings of Aleister Crowley with some of the key... opponents of what we called the message. You find that the message was based on Jewish mysticism, esoteric knowledge. And in effect, you could call Alistair Crowley a grandfather of sorts to the message.

Now, that's going to be a very interesting trail of thought and research to delve into there. I can say in my recent study of the Godhead of what the message teaches is that it really downplays Jesus Christ. It puts Jesus in the mind of God like the bride is as a thought or an attribute that actually came forth was born. So, except for Jesus being a special son that came out of God in the beginning, but still he was born. So there is a beginning of Jesus Christ or the son, because Brother Random always said, sons have

beginnings. That which is eternal never had a beginning. So he's saying, basically he's saying Jesus Christ had a beginning. Now, that's very contrary to the fact that, you know, God has always eternally existed as Father, Son, Holy Spirit or the Word. It was there with God in the beginning. But he's saying now that the Word came out from God and that was the son. So I had a beginning. And one, he actually goes further to say, and I won't, that's going to be in my new book. I'll give a few things about it. But is that the bride was also in

him at the beginning. And that's why people say things like I came from God, I go back to God. I always was eternal. I always had eternal life. I just had to recognize my day in this message or I had the light had to shine on me to do whatever God didn't regenerate me. So it kind of bypasses the gospel in that respect, because the gospel teaches that we were in depravity. We were dead. And we actually had to be resurrected by God, not that we were always had eternal life and came from God. And we're here just waiting for the light

to strike us. So that it's a very different teaching between true, Christianity and the message in that respect. And I thank you for getting into it with your studies there on these esoteric things. And it's only been recently that I've really thought about.

There's been so much said by Tim Kraus about the zodiac. And he talks a lot about him saying one of the Bibles was the zodiac and also the pyramid. I mean, that's pretty far out. And that gets into that occult realm. And one thing I wanted to mention is that if you go back to Gordon Lindsay's wife, when she wrote in her diaries, she even said in her diaries that some of the things that he believed were occultic, you know, some of the things that he actually believed. And even Baxter said, the things that were

happened in the meetings were borderline psychic. You know, I believe he was being nice, you know. And I believe that those people, like Cornelindsey and Earn Baxter, kind of directed him in a way so it could be palatable to Christians, so it could appeal to the Christian audiences.

But behind the scenes, you may have had some occultic things really going on. Oh, absolutely. And those things tied back, actually ties back to what I said with Crowley. So Crowley, as you know, was in England.

And there was this movement called British Israelism that came into the United States. Well, it combined with what was called Anglo-Saxonism. There are two different movements. British Israelism is the notion that the lost 10 tribes of Israel emerged in the British Isles.

And so they were the true children of Israel. You know, this was before the nation of Israel was established, right? That came into America. As did this Anglo-Saxonism. Anglo-Saxonism is the notion that the Anglo-Saxon people are the similar to our white supremacy.

They were the superior race, essentially. When those two merged, they came into the United States and there was formed the Anglo-Saxon Federation. Cornelindsey spoke at multiple of these conferences of the British Israelism and the Anglo-Saxonism.

One of the key components of this, and again, it came straight out of England, likely influenced by Aleister Crowley, was the notion that the Zodiac, the stars were a road map describing the timeline of events leading to the end of days, as such were a Bible written of old.

In the same thing with the great pyramid of Giza, they said that the distance from the pathways that goes down into the King's Chamber, there apparently some imperfections in the leveling as it goes down, and these bumps, I think one of them, they said the great financial crisis leading up to the fall of the stock market.

They said that this was one of these bumps in this road map, and therefore we can estimate that the world will end on such and such a date, and therefore the Bible of old was also the pyramids.

All this pyramidology, Zodiac knowledge, it all came out of this weird mess, which was heavily influenced by Aleister Crowley. Yes, really interesting there. As I was studying all these things, I realized I believe that I'll put in my book here, and it shows what a shallow understanding I think Brother Adam had in the scriptures.

His understanding was shallow in the fact that he didn't go deeply into the scriptures, he would read it kind of the way he wanted to read into it, and I'll give an example, goes along to support his three-stage salvation approach or the fact that you've got to be baptized correctly to have a Holy Spirit.

If you go to Acts 19, I'll put a chapter in my book on that.

He always in the message, if you always listen to what he says about Acts 19, he says those disciples there, and because the Bible says there are disciples, but he says they were good Baptist people.

So his shallow reading of the scripture just assumed that they were already believers in Jesus Christ, because it's very, if you don't take the scriptures in context as a whole, that's what causes you to get out there on these limbs.

You know, that's not correct. It is true they were disciples, but they were disciples of John. So they only knew the baptism of John. So after Pentecost, they have not heard about Jesus Christ and were baptized because of their belief in Jesus Christ.

So obviously they couldn't have a Holy Spirit because they weren't even believing in Jesus yet. But William Browne makes the assumption that because the Bible says Apollo's was mighty in the scriptures and was preaching Christ, he assumed that he made this big assumption that he had already preached Christ to those believers on Acts 19, that Paul came across in Ephesus.

But Apollo's, you know, had to be straightened out by Aquila and Priscilla for the way of God more perfectly. So sure, Apollo's was preaching at one point, but wasn't preaching Christ at one point.

He was preaching, you know, how great God was and the mighty God, but not about Christ. So they showed in the way of God more perfectly, but the Bible doesn't say that Apollo's went and preached to these disciples at Ephesus.

It's very clear because I say we're disciples of John. If they had been preached to by Apollo, so they would have already been baptized correctly, right? And they'd already said to Paul, hey, we believe in Jesus Christ, we were baptized by Apollo's who preached Christ to us, but no, they said, we only know baptism of John.

Well, Browne makes the assumption that they were already Christian believers and just haven't been baptized correctly. And so therefore they need to be baptized over in the name of Jesus Christ and now the Holy Spirit come.

So that's just a big example of how he took a very shallow understanding to sway, I guess to push it toward his belief in the way he's teaching it in that three-stage salvation. And that's how he could focus on baptism.

It has to be said in the name of Jesus or otherwise you don't have the Holy Spirit or it's not valid. This and that, which is just not true. You know, so I'll point that out in that particular chapter.

So I think that's very important to know. Exactly. And you know, these were ideas that were nothing new to William Browne. I'll never forget when I first came across the name G.T. Haywood.

but and started studying early Onus Pentecostal. Haywood was an African-American Pentecostal from Indianapolis who he largely contributed to the spreading of Onus Pentecostalism before William Brannum ever did. And he published a track called The Victims of the Flaming Sword in response to the widespread effect that this had on American religion.

We're in black people with black skin and people with white skin were mingling together, they called it, among the white supremacists. He was causing a racial integration of religion and Roy Davis and Colonel William Joseph Simmons formed apparently in retaliation the nights of the flaming sword.

And as you know, Davis goes into Indianapolis or into Indiana through Louisville, Kentucky. Well, the surprise for me was that Onus Pentecostalism pre-existed Brannum because we were trained to believe that Brannum brought this as one of the divine truths, that they were all baptizing incorrectly.

And it's really funny when you think about it. It all comes down to one pivotal word. The Onus Pentecostal is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. William Brannum says, no, it must be the Lord Jesus Christ.

And when I realized this, I realized that it was nothing more than an incantation because in essence, his entire theology of baptism was that if they didn't use the one word, Lord, then the person was actually being baptized incorrectly in an effect going to hell if you followed out to William Brannum's logical conclusion.

So the saying of the word by the person who is doing the baptism becomes an incantation over the person being baptized. That's true. And that's why I say over and over now, I know there's no magic in the words, but what he's saying is, you know, there's something in the words, because his message is all about the spoken word, right?

So it was about the words that you speak. But I think it's a heart attitude and what you're coming on the basis of your belief is from the heart. And the act of baptism is just an outward act.

It's not, there's nothing magical going to happen in baptism. It's just an obedience to the word. So the words that you say, you know, you ought to say how baptized you on the authority of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit or in the name of Lord Jesus Christ or Jesus Christ, even in the New Testament, they were using different formulas.

Nobody used the same formula. So to try to point it down and say, you've got to say this, this, and this, otherwise it's not valid. It was just an whole water. It's just not scriptural.

And so you can't... the whole people over the flames of hell because they didn't get baptized correctly and that's what he's doing. And that's where the fear comes in. So another chapter I put in here and this goes along with his teaching on how the denominations will be treated in the tribulation and so forth.

And again, what he's teaching is a very shallow view of scripture because you don't read, you're not saying everything scripture is saying and it's with the foolish and wise virgin. And I've even heard, you know, the churches I was in preach about this and they go so far to say that the foolish virgin had a partial atonement because they don't want to say whether the denominational people can never be saved or aren't saved. So what they do is they say something very unscriptural by saying, well, they've got a partial atonement and that's not even in the scripture. How can you either got all the atonement or you got none of it? I mean,

there's not half the blood of yours and half is not. It just doesn't happen that way. But I've heard it straight from the mouth of the message preachers that and even I think Brother Brennan even mentioned it that they have a partial atonement. They don't have the full atonement. Well, that's not scriptural.

But in the foolish and wise virgin, he likes to use that passage to allude to that and to that belief because he'll say the foolish were believers. They were, you know, they were virgins, they were bride material, but they just weren't in the bride. Well, if you read in the scriptures, Jesus tells them in the end, he says, I never, I never knew you. So if the foolish virgin is actually the denominational that's going to be saved in the end because they went through the tribulation, Jesus kept and made that statement that I never knew you. You know, to say you never knew somebody

means, you know, you're outside the kingdom of God altogether. Even though they called them a virgin, you know, you can't interpret that to say, well, they were part of the church. So that's just what I point out in that chapter. You see, and another one in the same manner is the 70 disciples.

He liked to say that the 70 disciples at Jesus called to go out and do miracles, to do ministry, to preach Christ is coming. He liked to say that they eventually turned away and rejected him and his message and walked away. Well, if you read the Bible carefully again and I explain this to my chapter, and I won't go into detail here, except to say that Jesus was speaking to disciples in John 66, about, except to eat the flesh of a son of man, drink his blood, you have no life in you than the disciples. The disciples said, you know, this is a hard saying who can say it and

says, many of his disciples walked away. Well, if you think about who disciples are, they were the multitudes surrounding Jesus so it wasn't just the 70. But To put support into his message and the fact that you can if you don't listen to his message you're lost and that that gives credence to those that do turn away from the message because they realize how how false it is that they can be pointed to with their like the 70 disciples that walked away you once believed and now you're rejecting the message because you can't stomach the words of the prophet well the bible doesn't say they were the 70 disciples that walked away it says they were just disciples.

So he takes a great leap you know that's not in the scripture and that's how he twists scripture again and again to support his ministry and to bring everything back to him and to try to support what he's saying but it's just not what the scripture is saying and even another one I detail in there about Malachi 4.5 now this was something that caught me years ago I would I believe Malachi 4.5 did speak of some prophet to come and that's why they'll tell you message believers will ask you say what he's not the one that who is the one coming well I think we've already got that answer in scripture when it says he brews that God has spoken to us in these last days by his son and the law in the prophets were until John that's the whole answer is that we're not looking for another to come even John said you ask Jesus are we looking for another to come or is he the one well he was the one he said go tell him what you're seeing

so we're really not looking for another one to come and and people can can get this in their head because of what's pointed out in Luke 117 it appears that you know the actual words being used turn the hearts of the children to the fathers to the children and the second part of that prophecy turn the hearts of the children to their fathers doesn't seem to be in Luke 117 so that left the door open for a second fulfillment or a a double meaning for that scripture to be fulfilled at a later time but actually if you look at how the scriptures actually written in Luke 117 it actually has twofold prophecy in there because it says right after the turning the hearts of the fathers to the children the scripture says turn the disobedient to the wisdom of the just well who are the disobedience of the children over again scriptures describe children as being disobedient

and over again just wisdom the wisdom of the fathers it's Abraham is our father so John the Baptist was turning people back to the father Abraham to the faith of the fathers because God in the beginning just wanted Israel to believe him and to rely on his grace and not works to make it in he provided the sacrifice but they got caught up in the works and and Israel became a nation of I've got to do all the law I've got to keep it perfect Basically, I've got to do everything or otherwise I'm out of the picture and that's carried

over into the message is that you've got to keep the law, a lot of things in the law, however you're not keeping all of it, but you're keeping the things that's important to weigh and brand them in the law.

But that's never what God intended, God intended to rely on His grace. He's provided the sacrifice, you just rely on His grace to get you in and then you live for Him. And then you're constantly sanctifying you constantly.

So anyway, that's Malachov IV and I'll put that in the book. If people were just reading with an open mind, they can see clearly there was no major profit to come after Jesus Christ.

You know, for me, where it really ends up, if you take all of these doctrines and you study the strategy behind them, there was a strategy in their introduction into the ministry and that strategy was to divide and sever the body of Christ.

Brandham openly says this. He says, this is the apostate church. I'm trying to sever myself from them. Be separate is one of the phrases that they use in the message. And the end result is they were trying to sever the body of Christ and you and I both know the scriptures that describe what that is referring to.

I, you know, when you talk about the book of Malachi, it took me a while to grasp this. And it wasn't until I think it was in the Baptist seminary, I was talking to a guy.

I mentioned earlier, I was, you know, in the seminary quite a bit, just studying and learning. I think it was in there that the person was talking about the way that the scrolls were developed and how, you know, it was a scroll.

It wasn't a book with chapters and numbers and verses and it was literally meant to be read from start to finish. And that concept, I'll be honest, it took me a long time to grasp because we were taught to take a single verse out of context and make that verse, again, almost like an incantation, that verse had power and that verse was separate from the collection of other verses that made up the entire scroll.

And the very first line of that scroll is this is a word that came to Israel, not to the Gentiles. And it's talking about, you know, the things that are coming, which as you said, Jesus fulfilled them all if you know and understand the scriptures.

But taking the aspect of having verse numbers and chapter numbers out, you really can't point this in the way that the message points it. They tried to say chapter three was for John the Baptist, chapter four was so absurd, but for William Brannum.

But this was a scroll. There were no chapter divisions. I think the... The hardest thing for me to understand was simply the word great and terrible, because I heard sermon and sermon and sermon at how the great and terrible thing, great and dreadful, the great and dreadful day of the Lord is coming.

They said, that can't be Jesus. But if you go back and you study the language itself, great and terrible is the English translation of a word that was so much more complex than our English language has a word to describe.

So it was literally a word translated as great and terrible. The combination of all of these things for me was that Malachi is in fact talking about Jesus Christ, and like you said, the verse, the law and the prophets were until John, and now the kingdom of heaven has preached.

We weren't looking for a prophet, but they tried to twist everything out of context to say that we were. Yeah, that's true. It shows that you really have to be careful in studying the scripture because I've learned, and I'm still a novice, I'm really not an expert or anything, because I've not had a great amount of seminary education, said I had any at all, but context is everything, and there's a correct way to study the scriptures and to keep it in context, because like you said, they pull scriptures out of context, and maybe pull one here, and it's totally,

it's totally just alters the meaning of it altogether, so we just have to be very careful not to do that.

Couple of other things I'll mention that I have in my book, and it's talking about a lion tongue. I mean, if you read all the scriptures about what God said, and what Paul said about lion, you know, people give way in random excuses for lion, because they'll point back to Abraham, and say, well Abraham told a lie, you know, but Abraham told a half truth to save his life, and I don't think William Brannum's life was on the line where he was going to be killed by anybody for what he was telling, but you know, Paul said, let's see if I can see any scriptures here.

He says, of course, Jesus said, if you're lying, you're of your father or the devil, right? Paul says, you know, the God of our father, our Lord Jesus Christ, which is bliss for ever more, no with I lie not. So Paul was very particular. He said, I have things I write unto you, behold, before God I lie not. Psalm says, concerning God, it says, I hate and I pour line.

Oh no, that's what David said, I hate and the poor line, but I love, do I love? Psalm 119, remove from me the way of lying. Deliver my soul, Lord, from lying lips, from a deceitful tongue.

I mean, six things, Lord hate, seven-hour abomination, a lying tongue is one of those. I mean, over and over again, Paul says in colline- questions lie not one to another, seeing that she put off the old man. So if you're living in the old man, you can be lying. You would mind telling lies. And so to give William Brennan a pass on his line is a serious thing. And there's multiple, multiple examples of dishonesty, you know, even in the stories that he tells about how certain miraculous events took place. They didn't happen as he said. And multiple witnesses that maybe wrote about it

was totally different than what he said. One concerning the boy that was killed by the car.

I know one about the cloud in Arizona totally made up. Helene of Congress in the Upshaw was another one. The baptismal service, how he told that. The first encounter with Pentecostal people, we know he was a Pentecostal before he encountered his Mishawaka meetings, just over and over again.

I point out that lying is really not, we can't excuse that. In other words, you just can't do it. And then when you get to the vision of 1952, which I wrote about really carefully in this book, the Desperate Prophet, and how he used a lie over and over again to make you believe it was the truth. You know, that was done by the Nazis. It's a study been done on it called the illusory truth effect. If you tell a lie over and over again, as if it were the truth, you're going to start believing

it yourself. So I can imagine he really believed these things himself because he told him over and over again. But the research proves that a lot of what he said was not true. So for the angel to come down and tell them all those things in that vision that did come to pass, it comes down to the angel was not telling the truth either. And that's a very serious thing because I think there's only one type of angel that would not tell the truth. And they're the ones on the opposite side of where we want to be. They're the demons. So that says a lot. And I put the whole chapter in on

that. And then the last couple of things I'll point out, maybe before we wrap this up, I think they're important to go along with your thoughts on how you preach serpent seed and what that was all about. Was his stance on interracial marriage and also illegitimate children. You know, he was definitely against the interracial marriage of black people with white people, but you know, he doesn't really condemn other races, marrying other races, but there's a really, we shouldn't be referring to human beings as races because we're all one race for the human race. We all came from Noah's

three sons, which were all human. They weren't beast from the serpent. And so really, that's how we have to look at the human race. And so marriages are a decision between a man and a woman to They love each other no matter what color.

they are, or what culture they are, they just have to go into the marriage knowing if there are different cultures, they've got to adapt to that, they've got to adapt to each other's families. But the bottom line is that they love and want to be together. So how can you condemn that? And even in the message ranks, you see it happening more and more, there's interracial marriage going on. So really, they don't believe their own message. Or, you know, what are they going to say about that? It's happening. And so that's, that really needs to be dealt with. I mean, you've got preachers that will stand against it and others

that accept it. So there you go. You've got the vision and the message. The last thing I'll point out is the fate of illegitimate children. I wanted to read a quote. There was a question asked in 64 about questions and answers. And this goes along with you having to be in the thoughts of God before eternity, to even be in the bride or to be saved, be in the bride of Christ. So they said, uh, dear brother, brownham, if a baby is born out of a wedlock, can the child ever be saved or go in the rapture? And he answers back saved

why sure I believe the child could be. He says the child can't help what's been done. That is true. But this is, but I about going in the rapture. He said saved. I'd say yes.

But in the rapture, it's a predestinated seed that goes in the rapture. And I cannot believe that adultery was a predestinated seed. You understand? So right there, he's not acknowledging that the blood of Jesus Christ can break every curse of the law that we were under, because Galatians, so I think it says Christ came to redeem us from the curse of the law that the blessings of Abraham will come on those who believe. So it's not a matter of how you came into this world because we all came on the same basis. We all came dead in

our sins. It is on your basis of belief in Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross. It'll break every curse. And that will put you in the bride of Christ. It will put you as an adopted son or daughter of God. And you have to feel no shame about where you came from. But the message teaches that it teaches them fatically here that you cannot be in the bride of Christ if you did not come legitimately in wedlock. So right there, he's written out.

He's taken people out of the kingdom of God that we're not born and holy wedlock. But the Bible does not teach that. There's another departure from scripture. The scripture teaches that we were redeemed by the curse of the law. The curse of the law may have taken us out of the kingdom of Israel. Yeah, the illegitimate child had to stay out of the kingdom of Israel, but not out of God's kingdom. And not so they can have full rights as an adopted son as a bride member. Everything is fully if they trust in the Lord Jesus. So

That's just the last point I wanted to make on that. Yeah, and it all goes back to a point we talked about earlier, false foundations. That's why I say you should study the bad guys, study their foundation, because the foundational teaching was again the two-seed bloodline and the fact that evil was introduced into the human race through the sexual union between Eve and the serpent.

And therefore, there is a racial heritage of good versus evil. And this statement that you just read, it's referring to that, such that he is openly believing that your bloodline determines your eternal destination.

If you follow all of the paths out to their logical conclusion, that's exactly where it leads you. The most interesting part about all of this, I don't know if you've read it or not, but Peter Dyser's book, Legend of the Fall, he examined William Brenham's family tree, and you find that he has the same problem in his own family tree.

And whether he was aware or not, I can't say, I would say he likely was aware, but he himself is a victim of his own false doctrine, in that he himself can't go into the rapture based on his own family tree.

Because he's preaching the serpent seed doctrine, and he is claiming that the adultery of the previous generations is affected on the children. And the sum of all of this, you mentioned the lying. For me, I think that's the biggest key.

Where do you draw the line? William Brenham lied to the extent he invented Bible verses, and he repeated those Bible verses. I have them stuck in my head still. I'll sometimes, somebody asked me a question, and I have to be very careful that I don't repeat a Bible verse that he himself added to the Bible.

And you know what the Bible says in the book of Revelation, whosoever adds to, or takes away, one of which he says, he says it's many times, but I chose specifically because of the title, in his 1955 sermon, The Seal of the Antichrist.

Brenham says that he says specifically, the Bible said we're born in sin, shaped into an equity, come into the world speaking lies. That last part isn't a Bible verse. The first part is a Bible verse, and it's talking about, you know, the righteous people.

The second part is talking about the evil people come into the world speaking lies in a separate verse. So you have two verses, one talking about good, one talking about evil. William Brenham mixed them together and invented a new Bible verse to basically explain away the fact that he's lying.

So many... times. And he said this repeatedly over and over until I grew up, I think I'm almost certain I heard my parents say this. Whenever somebody said something that wasn't true, they said, well, you come into the world speaking lies. The Bible said so. That's an invented Bible verse. So the end result of all of this, if you examine the foundation, it was a platform built from the wrong false theology from very, very sinister figures in a American in English history.

And the false doctrine is based on lies. So the sum of all of this is you have to ask yourself the question, was this a movement by God or was this a movement by Satan? And I'm not going to answer that question. I'll let the listeners answer. But I have an opinion and I think you can probably guess what my opinion was. So it's very good to have you on here, John. If you could hold your book up and tell us again the title and where we can get it. Okay, this is available on eBay. And I also

think I have it on Amazon, but it's called Defending the Truth, Comparing William Brannum's doctrine with scripture. And I also have another little booklet. This one will clearly outline a false prophecy of the Africa India vision in 1952. I think this would be the linchpin. If I know of any linchpin that would bring someone out of the message or should if they follow the scripture in that prophets cannot prophesy falsely, according to Deuteronomy 18. I put that in this case, he became a desperate prophet because he prophesied this great vision that took three hours to occur,

which was confirmed by his wife, his mother that came down and said the Lord told her to come down. And even someone in town who was a salesman, there knew something had happened. And then yet it still failed to come to pass. And you just can't explain this one away. But it's called his use of the illusory truth effect to support false prophecy. Well, after the vision failed, he had to make up some excuses for why it failed. And then also begin to proclaim reasons why it came to pass. You know, he said one time it didn't come to pass. And another time

he said it was my greatest meeting I ever had and I had 500,000 people in there. Yes. And he kept saying that over and over to the people of the nation. Now now this gets into something that he says he never took offerings. But if you go back and look at all the sermons in 1952 about him going to India, when he talks about this prophecy, he talks about offerings over and over again. Thank you for your I need your offerings. We're we're saving up to go to India. He took up offerings for all the time. So he had to go around the nation after this vision failed and account to these people

the thing and you know what's peculiar about this in this vision or in this he said 500,000 people were in the meetings and he only could point to one healing maybe two that occurred in all these meetings altogether. Now how does that happen when you got 500,000 people in attendance and he said is a massive humanity and he can only mention the blind men being healed and I think another boy a deaf boy hearing that was it. So that tells you that's tells a lot right there too. Indeed and it's very interesting. So I'm very glad to have

you on here John and if you are interested in learning more you can get John's books. I'll link them into the description so people can find them easily and if you've enjoyed our show and you want more information you can also check us out on the web you can find us at William-Branum.org. For an overview of the historical research of William -Branum and the healing revivals you can also read preacher behind the white hoods a critical examination of William-Branum and his message available on Amazon, Kindle and Audible.