Our Stories: An Interview With Simon Laumer

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-Branum.org and with me I have my very special guest Simon Laumer, former message believer. Simon it's so good to connect with you again and have you tell your story to our listeners on the podcast. You and I have been talking for gosh I don't remember how many months now. As I was beginning to research into the message in Germany and I know when people hear the name of the church, the name of

the minister that that you came from, there's going to be a million questions sent in and I'll just head some of those off at the pass right now. We're probably not going to address Sarah Brannum in this in this series or Colonial Dignidad but we are going to talk about Ewald Frank who was a significant message figure in multiple countries but even in the United States, Frank was very popular within some splinter groups and sects within the message. But anyway it's very good to have you here and to let the listeners know your story of how you came to leave the message following of William Brannum. So

maybe if you could tell just a little bit about yourself Simon. Yes, hi John. Sarah great to be here. Thanks for having me on your podcast. Well my name as you said is Simon Lauer. I'm from Switzerland and I was kind of a member in the message church of Ewald Frank. I'm 34 years old and I've been married for eight years now to the best wife in the world and I've studied mathematics and I've just recently finished my PhD in economics. Well how do I start my my story out of the message? I think I start with this. I was raised in the message and I think

both of my grandfather's actually heard William Brannum when he came to Zurich. I think was 1955 and I have very dear parents. We still have good relationships for which I'm very grateful and I love them very much. And my father also leads to small house churches or something of that sort.

And he also organizes the youth camp and many of the young people, all of them I would say, they like him a lot because I think he focuses much on the love of God and he's not legalistic. And so I feel very blessed for having these two parents. Well, I think the major problem for me started with this frustration concerning salvation. Well, as you know, obviously there's this idea of the three steps you have to take, right? Justification, sanctification, baptism in the spirit. And evil Frank calls them like salvation experiences, like you have to experience this, right? And so you never know what what's the nature in what you have

experienced, what you have not experienced. So that's this is one problem, I think. And then the second problem, which really was major for me was this frustration with free will, versus predestination because they would say it's our responsibility, you know, to get saved.

And at the same time, they would talk about grace and predestination. And so it was very confusing. And well, that was the one major point for me, but it took me a long time yet to get out of the message finally. Well, someone told me about the book by Martin Luther. And you will hear me mention Martin Luther quite a lot in the coming minutes or the coming hour. And the book by Martin Luther is called on the bondage of the will. And I don't think I think many Protestants don't really know that, but Martin Luther never believed in salvation based on your own free will

or your personal choice. And so when I read that book or part of it, I really understood it's all all by grace that were saved. That was that was very important for me. So that was the I would say the first major point where I had then some cognitive dissonance to what I heard you will frankly and also William Brennan because as you know, Brennan like said both things like there's those passages where he says, well, it's all by grace. And there's others where he says, well, I don't know, he calls it three moral agency, I think, in English.

Well, that was that. And then I had, I read another work by Martin Luther called on of good works. It's not so well known actually but it's one of his major booklets from 1520 and in there I first understood how to really trust in the love of God because just in very short form and what he says is actually that the death of Christ is the proof that that God loves humankind and so I learned how to trust in the love of God and that God indeed is merciful, is friendly and so I learned that years before I left the message

and from there on I often had this cognitive dissonance where I almost went crazy sometimes that's how it felt for me when I heard stuff said by evil Frank and I said well how this is a man of God right so how can this be and I started to understand that the God that he preached is not the God I learned to believe in and I even wrote a letter to some of the quote unquote elders where I talked about that and I hardly got the reaction so there was that. I never will forget whenever I first started thinking about leaving the message. Your mind races through all of these

historical figures and you know obviously William Branham is your main figure but for me I started going back and just thinking church history you know because we were taught that in the message this was this was the next chapter in church history right so I wondered did the previous chapters align with this new chapter that we were told we were we ourselves were writing and I also went back to Martin Luther and like you I was very surprised to find out just how different Martin Luther was from this quote unquote chapter of the they call it the new book of Acts in America I

don't know how it is in Germany but we're writing this new book of Acts and yet every single thing said about Martin Luther and even many of the other church figures of history was completely wrong and like you I started understanding that the Martin Luther that was portrayed in the message not only was he wrong but he probably would have condemned what we were in right and I I did know that Martin Luther and his and his preaching was different than the message I didn't know how different

but I knew that it was different and they always explained it like well there was like there was this restoration like coming back to the world and so that's how they would explain it. But actually, even more interesting for me was this controversy with John Wesley, right?

Because John Wesley supposed to be the church-age messenger to the Philadelphia church-age, and when I learned that actually John Wesley had a major controversy with George Whitfield about predestination, that was really strange for me because I did read and the biography of George Whitfield and John Wesley really condemned the dogma of predestination. He said actually was from the devil or less.

So that was that. That was very difficult for me. And then I should mention maybe the next step in my story was I have a cousin who actually showed me some of her own research into William Branham, her own historical research, in particular concerning the cloud of 1963, and also the story of Toni Morton.

And I remember that my pride would not allow me to say no, I won't look at that. I said of course I can look at that, and then I can prove you wrong or something like that.

And so I looked into her research a little, and I think I understood at that point, well, there's a problem with the dates concerning this cloud. I realized that, but as I said, I already had this large frustration, and I think deep within me, I already hoped that I could somehow, somehow this whole message was not true.

And so I could somehow say, well, I don't really care. And I think it was a mixture between, yes, I did not care really. It was not so important for me. At the same time, I think I was afraid to really dig deeper and question it. So that then sometime went by, I think it was months or even years.

And then I think the next major turning point for me, I continued reading stuff about Mark and Lutheran. And then I came across, this might be rather strange, maybe for some listeners, but I came across this discussion between Luther and Swingley about the sacraments or the Lord's Supper.

And I'm sure that's something people might know. And Luther really, he said, well, the text says, this is my body. So that's what it means. And that's what he believed. Now, I'm not saying that I believe exactly what Martin Luther said about this subject. Although I'm pretty close, but I'm trying to make another point.

Luther was so explicit or so clear about this point that the text says, this is my body. It was so extreme that I think for the first time it really struck me, that's the text and the simple meaning of the text of the Bible actually matters.

And I think that's such an important point for people in the message because we are taught that it's all about revelation. And so there's another cognitive dissonance, right? They would say it's the Bible and only the Bible.

In particular, I don't know, I think Evolt Frank is very, very focusing on that. He says the Bible, only the Bible, only the Bible. And people accuse Evolt Frank of actually correcting the prophet because he does that.

And in my view, at that time, it gave Evolt Frank much credibility because he was saying the Bible and only the Bible, right? But I never really understood this idea that if there's a clear passage and if there's a clear meaning, an unambiguous meaning, then that's what it means and that's what issue belief.

And so this was new for me. And well, when this really worked in my mind, I started to think about some of the doctrines that we believed in the message because I thought, well, there must be textual reasons, there must be clear textual reasons and evidence for what we believe.

And for me, the turning point really was serpent seed. And of course, I was kind of shocked when I later learned by your research that it was actually much worse even in its origin and its meaning.

But for me, at that time, was just about, is it true or not according to the Bible? And so actually, the matter settled for me just Genesis 4.1, right? And I came to see, well, that's what it really means.

It's a clear passage. It has an unambiguous meaning. And so that was a hard point for me, actually. This was in May 2022. And really, there, I went through some time of fear because you fear to lose your salvation if you reject the prophet.

So that was difficult for me, but I felt like I really have to go through that. And I felt like Jesus will just, you know, pull me through that. And so that's what happens.

I think you're the second person in just a week of doing these interviews that mentioned that passage from Genesis the first time that somebody actually read it and critically thought about what was said.

It undermines all of Serpent Seed. And I know there will be people in the comments that there's a select few passages scattered throughout the Bible that they use and try to enforce that know this was the spawn of Satan McCain was.

But for me, when I read... the passage, and I'm drawn a blank, which one it is, but there's a passage in the New Testament where Paul says, of one blood is all mankind. And when I read this, you can't have both, right? You can't make the Bible say two things, and they both be correct when they're opposite. And you know, like you found a genesis, well, I found this in those in the New Testament. But you're right, the serpent seed doctrine is horrific if you trace its origins. I, it took me many years before I could come to grips with the fact that this whole movement came from dark origins. Initially,

I too was looking through just theological standpoint. How can I prove this right? How can I prove it? You know, from a Bible standpoint. And like you, I came to understand that it's not just that they told us incorrect things about the Bible. They taught us incorrectly how to read it so that they could enforce the things that they said that were incorrect. And when I came to terms with that, I was, I was angered because they had manipulated my mind on the book that is to define my faith, my being, my religion, my worldview. And they manipulated our minds as to how we interpret that.

And in Christianity, there is no greater crime than this. Right. And I think I should mention two other important points, but I'm not, I don't want to be controversial or have a debate, but it's important for my story. It's important for me. So I just want to briefly mention it because this idea of reading the clear passages of the Bible and understand them according to their most obvious meaning. Also had quite an impact on me when I started to think about the Godhead question. And now I came to believe actually in biblical unitarianism is what you would call it, which means that I believe that Jesus is the son of God

and that only the father of Jesus is the true God. Because I think that's the most clear interpretation of, for example, John 173. The second point would be this whole question about the end times. And because this is important because it's a, I think it's one point where they would like put fear into people like this whole thing about the greater relation and stuff.

And so I wanted to know how to understand all of that. You know, the all of it discourse of Jesus in Mark 13 or Matthew 24 and so on. And so there's this very interesting statement by Jesus where he says, this generation will not pass away until all of this basically has happened.

And so, I didn't find out all of this myself. Obviously, at this point, I learned from Bruce Gore, he's a Presbyterian Bible teacher, I think. And I came to be convinced that this generation really means the span of about 40 years. And when Jesus says all of this must have happened, will have happened within one generation, then he went within 40 years. And for me, it's not a coincidence that, like, there's about 40 years between Christ's death and their resurrection and the destruction of the temple in 70 AD by the Roman Titus.

And so, that was important for me, because then, also, I think that this coming of the son of man in the clouds of heaven, I think refers to Daniel 713, and it's not about Christ's second coming. So, there is a second coming in the future, I believe that. But for me, it was quite a relief, because this great revelation would then also fall in this span of 40 years.

And now, I truly believe that all this fear-mongering about the end times is actually obsolete, because we have no clue when the return of Christ will be. So, yeah. And now, maybe it's funny, because, as I said, I thought about all these things, like, biblical questions. And yet, for like half a year, I never really duck deeper into the historical question about Brannum. And I think that's looking back, it's rather odd. I cannot really, I don't really know. And then, I think in YouTube, it just popped up. I think it was the podcast about debunking the

halo, the pillar of fire picture. And so, I said, well, what is that? Let's look at that, and I watched that, and I, during the day and evening, I told my wife, well, we have to watch this again. And this was the start of it, and I was so shocked. I mean, I was kind of out of the message already, but maybe not quite, I mean, or in some sense not. So, I watched all these podcasts within, I don't know, it was the week, at the end of the year 2020, and I had holidays. And, well, that was some interesting times. Yeah, that's an interesting study when you get

into all of the many weird claims that, once you find out they're all fictitious, you're almost, you almost end up where you feel you're living in this fantasy world. And suddenly, you stepped out of it into the real world. And you look back and you think, well, why was I there? Why was I in this fantasy world, right? I never will forget, whenever I first left the message, I know there will be people who heard the statements on the Godhead, and then suddenly many of them actually stop listening, which is I find it really funny that this happens because people, if they hear one thing that

they disagree with, will they throw it all out? And in doing so, they miss a lot of really critical information. And it was a concept, you know, in the cult, you're taught a very black or white mentality.

I too had this, right? You hear the thing you disagree with, you tune it all out. It must all be wrong because you disagree with this one thing. When we went to our first church after the message, I'll never forget it, I was really wrestling with the Godhead because, like all other message believers, I was taught that William Brannum's version was incorrect, and I was taught that he had a version and that it was consistent, which is also false.

But I was taught that one, this Pentecostalism was the true way. And then every single thing that he said about Trinitarians was completely false. And through the course of the next year or so of being in the church, I realized that the minister actually admitted this from behind the pulpit.

He says, we believe in the Trinity, and he explains why he gives Bible verses why. He says, but in the end, nobody who is human can really understand God. And that concept really struck me.

I was working through all of this, I was trying to understand it, and the thought coming to my head, whether it's one, whether it's three, dualism, no matter what it is, a God who is above human understanding cannot simply be understood.

The authors of the history of Christianity write it as best they think they understand. So I'm not going to get into the Trinitarian, you know, Godhead debate, et cetera. But the point I'm leading up to is they also took a position on the Godhead, which was really interesting.

There was a plurality of elders, meaning that there were multiple pastors who led this church, and each one of them had a different view on the book of Revelation. One of them was the prayerist view, one of them was the future's view, you know, so on and so forth.

And this was confusing to me, I was like, why is this? It has to be right or wrong, black or white. And they agreed to disagree, it was the funny part. But I could listen to one, and I could learn many things.

Like you said, I learned the 40 years, I learned the, you know, in the, what is it? I think it's the prayerist view where the fall of Nero is what Revelation is talking about.

So I learned all of that from the person who believed that way. And then talking to the other man, there's one man who believed that par... Part of it was historical, part of it is futuristic, and he gave his reasons why and the verses, all of that made sense to me.

But by not tuning people out, I learned from everybody. And so my understanding is so much broader. And me, I heard this one guy tell me that he believed in the pan-millenniest view. And he said, basically, it'll all pan out in the end, and that was his view.

That may be the best way to go from me, I don't know. Yeah, I think I liked that because I really learned stuff from people who, among themselves, would totally disagree. I think they would sometimes excommunicate each other.

And but I think, well, why should I not learn of those people simply because they disagreed? I think you should always have critical thoughts. And maybe I should mention, you know, I'm not a trainitarian now, but when I learned that in my opinion, even though I'm not a trainitarian, I really much appreciate that trainitarians draw this clear distinction between the father and the son because you need this mediator between you and God. And I think that's, when I understood that, that struck me.

That in some sense, if you say Jesus is God in human form, as Brandon puts it, it actually means there's no mediator. If you just think through it logically, it's just a logical conclusion. And, you know, I'm a mathematician, so logic matters for me.

Well, there was something else I wanted to say. Let's see. Oh, yeah. And about the prayerist view, yes, I'm not, there's a fully prayerist view of Revelation, which I'm not, you know, in your revelations starting in chapter 20, I think he starts talking about the future. But that's not the main point now, I would say.

So now, maybe what I did is the following. It's very funny that my parents, my father, I think, somehow raised me to be an individual and not just to go with the masses. If,

and because I was trained to be like that, I thought, well, now I have to tell them. I have to tell them what I found out. And so I did. I wrote an email to about 40 people in the message in this three people's mission here. And I also then started to do my own website, where I list both historical research, where I most of them, most of it is taken from, from your resources and your site. And I also talk about biblical subject, subjects.

And it's interesting because I hardly got any reaction. And maybe here I can start talking about some of the differences between the three people's mission, the message here in Germany and Switzerland, and the message in, let's say America, because some things are really different.

Because when I left the message, there was no harassment. I mean, not at all. I mean, Charles Paisley wrote to me that there's so much harassment sometimes if you leave the message. And I didn't leave quietly in that sense.

I told them I wrote to these emails. And still, the direction was just too mostly, mostly not almost not 100%, but mostly just to ignore it. And I think that's some difference. And also, what is interesting is that, when I then read the book by Steve Hasen, combating called Mind Control, and he says one of the techniques that calls you to keep their members very busy.

But that's not the case in the three people's mission in Zurich. It's different, a little different, I think, in Crefeld, in Germany, where the main mission center is. But here in Zurich, it's not at all.

I know of people, like at least two, who actually came to the message of Evolt Frank, because they said, well, in this other Pentecostal church, I had to do so much things. And here I just can come, I listen, and I go home.

And also, because it's not in Crefeld, it's actually only one service a month, one service a month, and that's it. So, and there's much outward liberty, in some sense, there's also no membership. For example, I sometimes went to the services, sometimes I would not go, and nobody ever asked or really reacted to that.

I think that's rather odd. And also, interesting is that, when you said in your podcast that, I hope I understood that correctly, correct me if I'm wrong, but the ministers in the message in the US, you cannot just go to the platform and talk to them after the service.

And that was very odd for me, because we can do that. I mean, I could go to Evolt Frank after the service and talk to him, I once asked him to pray for me for something like that.

I could visit him in his office, you just go and knock. So, that was really odd. And I think these are many aspects, which I think give Evolt Frank a lot of credibility to the listeners, because he seems so humble, he seems so, he travels the world all his life.

He does not live in luxury, I know where he lives. It's in the Mission Center, they have these two buildings, these large buildings, where people come and can stay overnight for the great weekends, where they have large services.

And he would live in one of those. houses and so that's that's really strange and so it took me it was difficult for me to really see through that but as I said I mean logic matters and if the whole thing about random can be debunked well then the same goes for Evolt Frank. Right the message is really hard to put a label on.

I remember when I first began working with Dr. Hassan and was you know describing the dynamics of how the message worked it was hard to put it into words because what is the message you've got the main sect of the message which I thought was consistent through time and then you've got all of these splinter groups the branch off each having their own characteristics and I thought that was static you know to some extent but then I find out through additional research and especially working with Charles the main sect what we call the message today isn't what we

call the message you know back in the latter-rain message days and there's different iterations of what is the message in some variations of those even William Brannem himself was very approachable and then you get to the later years and it's an isolationist message and as I'm watching the group morph even further the message that exists currently is not the same message that I left the rules the doctrine everything's different and it changes so slowly over time that people don't notice it when you're in it but people who leave they remember what they left and so that when they interact with new people they're like this is totally different what is this

religion and they find out it's you know supposed to be the same but both sides aren't seeing the gradual shift but to your point about being approachable I went to some churches especially in some of the smaller churches where you could approach the minister afterwards and they were more credible because they they're they heated the Bible's advice that you should always be able to give an answer and they would you could approach them they would answer and I really respect many of these men because even though now I know they're what they believed is completely flawed

they truly believed it and they weren't being manipulative that's just what that's what they were taught and what they believed and many of them were raised in it so they had no you know no real weight and understand that this is flawed but there were others that I went to many churches my grandfather for example was escorted out of the building by bodyguards to his car and then you drive away you could not approach my grandfather and if you did you had to get through the bodyguards to get to them which was really odd especially in the later years and he's not the only one that was

like that I'll just say it like that and and let that go but there's there's different flavors and So what I'm leading up to is all of this made me question the validity of many of the things I read in combating called mind control because like you, I read, and that was the biggest stumbling block for me, I read the part where Dr. Hassan talked about how a destructive cult will try to keep you busy to occupy your mind.

And that's not the case in, I would say in any of the sects that I was in, I know there are some that exist that are like that, but I was never in one, and it took me a long time of talking with him before I understood they did it in a much different way, especially in the main core sect of the message, the objective by a cult that is doing the, they call them high demand groups, the objective by the high demand group is to occupy your mind.

So if they keep you busy, they're occupying your mind, well, whenever they're producing these recordings and ask you to go home, listen to them, they are at the same time occupying your mind. It's not, it's a different type of busy, it is still a busy, but I would say it's a level worse than what Dr. Hassan describes in his book because while some of the cults occupy your mind physically and just prevent you from thinking, this cult is literally brainwashing you while they occupy your mind.

So I would say on levels of destruction, the message would be far worse than anything that Dr. Hassan even described in his book. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. The thought often occurred to me that somehow this manipulation by evil Frank must be different than somehow even worse.

For example, hearing in Switzerland, at least also I think in Germany, it's not considered to be a bad thing to go to the university, to study. You can do whatever you want, yet at the same time, we would believe that science and education somehow is of the devil and somehow it's not.

So it's really weird and I think this shows me that people can completely distinguish well during their daily job, they would go to school, they would study and learn and it's all good and when it comes to matters of faith, they would completely reject any logical or reasonable questioning.

And so that I think is really a destructive way of manipulating people. So I would totally agree. One of the things that's interesting about the group that you came in, we've obviously, if you followed my research, we've been studying heavily for reasons which I'm not mentioning in this podcast for obvious reasons as well, but many of these splinter groups that develop over time, the central figure of that group becomes...

hyper-spiritualized. In other words, he's leading people into the message and I don't know whether it's egotistical attributes of his personality or whatever happened, but many of the leaders in this group, they become central figures of their own sect. And from what I can gather, it appears that way with you all, Frank, I'm not certain because you know more about it than me, but I do know in the United States, I've watched this happen time and time and again, and some of them go excessively destructive, especially some of the groups who are investigating currently out west, they oppress the people in

ways that are inhumane. It really gets really bad what happens. With E. Wald Frank, would you say that it was that the group splintered and went that direction? Would you say that he is the central figure of the sector? Would you say that he is instead just a common man who is equal among the people of his group that point people towards William Brannum, which how would you describe that sect? Well, it's obviously true that he really is the central figure and and he also puts much much emphasis on his ministry. So for example, he would

often talk about the experiences he allegedly had, all the supernatural experiences, he would repeat over and over again how like the Lord spoke to him in 62, an April of 62, and then he went to Jeffersonville and all of that. He would repeat over and over again how he now is really the successor of William Brannum, like we would believe that the ministry of Brannum like continued with E. Wald Frank. He would say he had this vision, I don't know the details, I don't remember, but like the sword, the sword, the sword of the spirit of the

world, whatever, like was given to him now. And so that's what I believe. And also he puts much focus on this idea that in this baptism in 1933, it's very important that the words were as John the Baptist was sent and so on. So your message will be the forerunner. Like this is very important, it's not the Brannum himself, but it's the message will be the forerunner. And he now carries this message and that's how he can put much emphasis on his ministry and his own authority. Now the interesting thing is that he really is the central

figure and and I think people have very much respect for him. I myself had a lot of respect for him when I started to ask you questions, you know, I asked him question about this free will stuff. And at the beginning I was I was afraid to ask him questions, but I was afraid to ask him questions, but I was afraid to ask him Well, okay, so he has much control, I think, over what people believe, but not all the people would follow him, like in outward matters.

I give an example, one of my grandfather, which I never knew him, unfortunately, but he was, in some sense, a very independent man, he must have been. And Evil Frank once asked him, could you please, you know, I don't know, start a house church with this and this brother, and somehow this other brother was, was, was strange.

And so, so my grandfather would say, Evil Frank, I will not do that, and that was it. And also, I know my own father, I mean, he doesn't just align with what Evil Frank would say regarding, you know, outward things or politics or whatever.

And so I, so I think we, we have this idea that it's the spiritual things, that's the important part. And, and so, yes, there is much, much focus on that on his authority there, but not in outward things, like, like in, like, what you've seen in, in Jim Jones and, and similar occurrences.

My grandfather, my maternal grandfather, not the one who was the pastor, but one of the churches he went to in the south, there came this doctrine after William Brannum died that the Bible says that you should give everything you have to the poor.

And the minister started preaching this every single sermon, meaning that you should, you should give it all to me, the pastor, which is really funny if you take a step back and think about it.

But my grandfather stood his ground and he rose up and he said, if we give everything to you to give to the poor, then we become the poor. Are you going to give it back to us?

And that silence stood immediately, you know, he obviously wasn't going to be giving it back to the poor people of his church. But it is interesting to watch that dynamic because there are ministers who in this cult, you know, and it's a very splinter groups who are so demanding that you cannot speak against them.

And if you do, they will ostracize you, your family. I can't even begin to describe how bad they treat you if this happens. One of the churches that I attended in the Midwest, the minister, we came after the minister was head stepped down.

So we did not experience this, but the people before us, the minister there was the ultimate authority on not just doctrine and scripture, but over your life. Before you bought a car, you had to have the minister's approval.

Before you got married, you had to have the minister's approval on the person that you intended to marry. And sometimes he would tell you, no, it's not this person. It's this... other person, which is really, really odd if you think about that level of control. But it is always interesting to see the different dynamics, especially when you go into some of the other countries. And it's not at all what I would have pictured whenever I first began researching the church that you came out of. Yeah, it's interesting. Actually, yes, I, as I said, I would ask

Frank about this whole question of free will. And he would exchange multiple emails, and I would also talk to him in person. And it's interesting looking back because he was being so nice. You know, he, actually, my wife and I, we went to Crefeld for a weekend where there was no large services just to meet him personally. And he would meet us in his office, and he would talk. And he would be so nice. And I think I assume I, I cannot know for sure, but I assume it just didn't want any, any serious questioning. And so that's maybe his, his way to deal with it. But basically,

when it really didn't, when I was not satisfied, then the last line of defense, he would be, I cannot discuss this. You know, I'm not allowed to discuss this. So in the sense that as a man of God, he's not allowed to discuss such matters with him because it's, it's, it's by revelation. It's clear. He has the full revelation. And so it's all good. And actually, this happened once. So I would, after one service, because I told him multiple times, I asked him, where is this, this phrase, decision for Christ in the Bible, even at one wedding. There was one wedding where he also was

present. And I was there also. And I talked to him again. And I said, well, we talked about this matter. And then he said, he would, he would mention, well, this decision for Christ is what Billy Graham, like Billy Graham always taught or mentioned. And that's, that's not what he means.

You know, and I was so relieved to hear him say that. I think I just, I think I hocked him immediately because I, I, I thought this was great. And then later he would again use this phrase, decision or decision for Christ or something similar. So I went to him after the service in Zurich.

And I, I asked him again. And this was a point where he really said, I cannot, I must not discuss this. And, and like he turned things. And so later, I was sorry, I wrote an email. So this, this sounds like it's, he's very friendly. And also in some sense, that's what it is. But, but now I should also add, I should also add that it's like a commonly known in the free people's mission somehow, at least in my family and that evil Frank, what, how did he phrase it?

He's not a shepherd. He's a, he's a teacher. That's how they would say, so he's not a shepherd, he's a teacher, which means this would excuse all his like interpersonal deficits, like all his, whenever he would have make mistakes or be at fault in personal matters, well, that's that, but that's not doctrine, you know, that's not doctrine.

So that is interesting, so he, I'm thinking through this. So in some cases he would give an answer, and in other cases he would say, I'm a man of God, I won't answer this.

In other words, I have my opinion, and I'm not giving it to you as your humble servant, who is also the central figure. It's weird because it's like he's playing both sides of the field, right?

And on the one hand, where he can give an answer, and where he knows that there's no risk in giving the answer, he will give the answer. But then on the other hand, if he sees that this might risk not only you, but strategically if you leave, there will be a small radius of people surrounding you that may also decide to leave.

So he can't give an answer in those cases. It's, it's almost similar to what my grandfather did whenever I started asking questions. Some of the questions just were not intended to be answered. And for me, it, it just kind of showed me that many men who are in this and leadership are aware that there are problems, and there are critical flaws with it.

But the way in which they have determined to avoid the fallout is to not talk about the areas in which there are critical flaws. Yeah, but it was actually, it was not, it wasn't really that he said, I know an answer, but I'm not giving it to you.

Rather, it was really odd, he, he would even admit, he would even admit and say, well, if I may have said some words in the wrong way, used the wrong expression, don't take this so heavily, that's what, what, what he said, and I said, well, show me in the Bible where they used to work decision here or something like that, and he would, and then he would just block, you know, it was just like blocking.

And I think it was, he just wanted to, to avoid getting into this discussion, because now looking back, I, I have, I have to assume that he's not really, in some sense, not a deep theological thinker, maybe, was just not, maybe was just not, he could not do it, maybe, that's just an assumption, I don't know.

Yeah, that could be, I can assure you that many of them that I grew up with are, are not deep theological thinkers. It's, you know, after you step back and if you, if you visit any of the websites where you can see the life feeds, it's really odd, because while you were in it, you felt like it was fresh mana from heaven, because that's what they told you, it's this fresh mana from heaven, we're writing the new book of Acts, and then when you leave and your mind starts to be able to heal itself.

from all of this and you hear what's being said, it's almost like they're parroting the same thing over and over and over again. And if you introduce questions or comments that could break that flow, that repetitive rhythm of doctrines or scripture, whatever it is they're doing, if you break that flow, it's almost like you have broken their record and they don't know where to go with it.

Yes, and this repetitive scheme is interesting because when I was a teenager, so long time ago, before I left the message, there was, as I said, I was somehow in and out of the message.

I mean, I went into the world as they say for some time and came back that happened twice, at least. And at some points I would say, well, he's always saying the same thing.

Well, I would say I can do that. I can have such a sermon. And later when I came back, I would feel sorry and be afraid, well, what did I say then? I had a bad conscience.

Yeah, I went to one church and we didn't stay very long, but for a few weeks we went to this one church and every single lady sitting in the entire building had the long hair, the long dress, as Pentecostal holiness lifestyle, right?

And every single sermon that that guy preached, he would spend at least a third to a half of the sermon, just railing women for cutting their hair. And I'm looking around and there's not a single woman in this building that has cut hair, right?

And so why is he doing this? And I was not out of the message at that point. I was still deeply in it, but that's the first time it hit me that it is a repetition and they're saying the same things over.

And there's no context to what they're saying. There's no relevance. And this happened to be one of these ministers that thought he had this supernatural divine inspiration of what he said. And God's, God gave him this message and it's fresh mana from God.

And I'm giving it to you because you need to hear it. And yet he's saying something that really nobody in this building needs to hear. And is not preaching it to the people outside of the building.

They're never going to hear what he said. So if there just happens to be a woman walking by who has short hair, she's got her hair, she's not even gonna hear it through the walls of the building.

So why is he doing this? And I began to realize it's some of them, I won't say it about him, but some of them just enjoy hearing what they have to say and they enjoy their own words.

But others, that's how they were trained to repeat these things over and over and over and over. And it's the cycle that never seems to get broken. Yes, Evelte Frank actually rarely talks about all these...

some dressing of women and long hair stuff, even though that was an issue, obviously, but it was rather indirectly because he would obviously promote the sermons of Brannum, and so that was an issue, but he would not talk about that himself often. Instead, he would repeat other things which I came to think, well, why is he saying that over and over again because he is not relevant? For example, you know about the issue of the Seven Thunders, and he would always tell this story that, how was it? I think, yes, someone asked him. No, no, no, that's

not. Okay, I'm confusing things, but I know that he claimed that God spoke to him, and so he then opened his Bible and so on, and so he said, well, it says in Revelation, don't write down what the Seven Thunders spoke, and that's it. So there's no revelation about the Seven Thunders and the biblical record is complete, and this would give him this credibility again, but he would repeat it over and over again. I thought, well, we have heard it, we have understood it. You know, none of us will believe any nonsense of the Seven Thunders. These are just the

stupid Brannumites from America, right? And this would, and this also happens without the doctrinal issues, very just repetitive. Yeah, I grew up in a world where we, I heard sermons ridiculing the people who were preaching the Sunday Thunders doctrine, so it's really hard to think about it. So you have come a long way, and you know, I understand if you were in and out of it growing up, it makes it a bit different from you, but still you went back. So I'm assuming there, there had to been some level of manipulation or programming. What, what was

it like whenever you were, when you were coming back into this? Did you feel as though your salvation was at stake, is that why you came back, or what was the reason why you came back? When I grew up, I would go regularly, and then I left, when I was about 20 years old, I left for about maybe a year or so, maybe two years. And then what actually happened, I had a personal crisis somehow, and you know, I think that's the manipulation, somehow you want to be saved, you want to somehow also be part of the group, or part of the, you want to be saved, right? And so

I had, I asked, I said to God, well, if you help me, if in this and this matter, then I will, somehow I will believe in you or something like that. And so this thing turned out well, it was actually about my studies, you know, I would have good exams or something like that. And then when I realized that, I had this very strong experience, this very, very nice feeling, you know, was very intense.

And looking back, I have no clue what it was. I must say, I could have been just psychological explained. But then I said, well, now, nice. Now I'm a believer, you know, I'm saved somehow.

And that's also strange because this whole talk about salvation experiences is so misleading in my opinion, because what matters, and that's what I learned from Martin Luther, what matters is the promise of God, you know.

It's not your feelings, it's just what he promised, you know, he promised to be friendly, he promised to save if you want to be saved. And so, okay, but I thought I was saved, but then I didn't go back to the message, because I had so, I didn't like it.

I never liked it when I was a child, when I was a teenager, I hated it somehow. And then, but somehow there was a cognitive dissonance in somehow, because, okay, I'm saved, but why am I not going to this place where there is this man of God, right?

And so, I felt like I had to make this decision, and so, I decided, well, I will go back. You know, that's the right thing to do. And once I decided, it was wonderful.

It was also wonderful, I went to the service, I had wonderful experiences. And so, I started to be really, really religious. You know, I would drive to Crafield with someone else, I couldn't drive a car at that time.

I would go once a month to Crafield, and it's about 400 miles, one way. And so, that was like maybe, that took some time. And then, I somehow, things started to change, and then all this thing about this free will, questioning this doctrine of free will started.

And then, there was something else where I thought, I asked God, well, can you please do that? And it didn't turn out the way I wanted to. You know, it was about my wife, my now, my current, my wife now.

And then, so I left completely, again. And actually, I came back somehow because, because then something happened, which I still today consider a miracle. You know, my wife actually contacted me, and now we're married.

And so, I would start reading the Bible again, a little here and there. And also, there was, and again, this must be subconsciously, well, this is the man of God. You know, if you're believing in God, you should somehow be part of this.

And so, I would start, go back occasionally, not always, my wife also didn't like this, going to the services of Evolt Frank, but it would go sometimes, and then, well, then there was COVID, and they didn't have services at all.

And that's about it, then. Well, I'm very glad that you were able to finally break free. And we've been working with several people who, like you, would have, foot out and then they get sucked back in. And then it's a really difficult dynamic because the way that they present themselves, it's not as though you can simply go to another church that's preaching about Jesus and be saved. They want to teach you that they alone have the full control over who gets saved because they're the only ones preaching this alleged divine truth.

And so people leave and they, you know, for whatever reason they come back to this place. And I'm glad you're finally able to break free. Your story is interesting because you broke free much differently than other people, which may have been, you know, simply due to the fact that you were in and out. There are a lot of people that are just so brainwashed that it really takes a severe traumatic event in their life before they can break free. And when they do, it's not usually the doctrine that they go after. And I think you may be the only one besides myself that I've

heard say studied Martin Luther whenever you were making the escape. So very glad to have met you and very glad to talk to you over the internet about this church and some of the histories that we're not talking about in this podcast. But I'm just thankful, thankful that you came and did this with us today. Yes, thank you very much, John. I also want to thank again.

Thank you for all the work that you and your co-workers do. We are very grateful here. I'm not the only one who left a message. We are a very small group that left, but at least I'm not alone in that. And so, well, thank you. And for our listeners who want to read more information about you and your website, maybe you could tell people how to access your website. Yes. Well, it's hard to say it in English. So in German, it says www.gottesstrichgnadestrichverstehen.com and I think people, English speaking people will just have to go to your website and it's listed

under the partner website. And well, the name of my website means understanding the grace of God because, and I want to maybe emphasize that one more time. For me, that was so crucial to not just not have just an experience and think you're saved, but really understand that God proved his love. That's Romans 5.8. That's like the most important verse for me. Like it says, God commends his love for us that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. And so when I understood that, that's really something you can hold on to. That's like a foundation where it can stand on.

And that's the title of my homepage, really understanding God's grace. It's very good. And yes, you can go to www.Williamdashbrandom.org or search for partners on the site and you'll see, you can see Simon's name.

also can't pronounce the name. So I will direct people to the website to find it. But I will also reaffirm what you said, leaving an understanding just the pure, the simple concept of grace.

It was eye opening because the first time I heard a sermon explaining it and using, I mean, it's straight out of the Bible. This is a Bible concept. This is a gospel concept, right?

Understanding grace. I was angered. Why on earth did they withhold this from us? This is one of the greatest concepts to learn and yet they did not. They wanted to confuse it. They wanted to say, we in this cult movement have grace.

And also, we have all of these things that take you out of grace. And you can lose the grace of God. God doesn't, our God is weak and doesn't love you. I mean, that's, in the end, that's where it comes to.

But anyway, if you want to see Simon's website and you can speak German, you can go to the partner's page on my website and you can find it there. But again, very glad to have you on here and I'm sure listeners will enjoy hearing the many things that you had to say about the reasons why you laughed and I share some of the same experiences.

So I know I loved it. 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-Brandom.org. For an overview of the historical research of William-Brandom and the healing revivals, read preacher behind the white hoods, a critical examination of William-Brandom and his message, available on Amazon, Kindle, and Audible.