Skip to content

An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham (Part Five)


Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): In-Sight: Independent Interview-Based Journal

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2020/03/22


John Collins is an author and the Founder of William Branham Historical Research. He discusses: gay-bashing; women-bashing; remarriage-bashing; social stigma around the rejection of the purported revelations; the community react to claims of an individual member losing supposed salvation; how former members can heal; homosexuals, women, the remarried, and the doubters finding help and a way out of “The Message”; and how William Marrion Branham blasted remarriage after divorce throughout “The Message” ministry while permitting or even helping brothers remarry several times.

Keywords: Christianity, John Collins, Seek The Truth, The Message, William Branham Historical Research, William Marrion Branham.

An Interview with John Collins on Gay-Bashing, Women-Bashing, Remarriage-Bashing, and Social Stigma in, and Healing from, “The Message” of the late William Marrion Branham: Founder, William Branham Historical Research (Part Five)[1],[2]

*Please see the footnotes, bibliography, and citation style listing after the interview.*

1. Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Some have been emotionally scarred due to the bashing of gays, of women, of remarriage, and the social stigma to the rejection of the ‘revelations’ in addition to assertions of individuals potentially losing salvation. What is the form of gay-bashing?

John Collins: The effects of emotional abuse in William Branham’s “Message” cult following and similar destructive cults are very painful, no matter the specific types of abuse.  They are also very personal.  Unlike physical abuse, the impact of emotional abuse is not limited to the area of impact.  As emotions are manipulated, whether it is from “bashing”, shaming, intimidation, fear, or other, the abuse is felt through each and every connected memory and even in other related emotions.  For those affected, it is a recurring form of abuse each time those emotions are brought to the surface.  Also, emotional abuse is not limited to the person being struck.  As cult leaders tear down the emotions of their victims, they often do so indirectly.  Victims of abuse for cults that practice “gay bashing” are not just those in the group who have homosexual tendencies.  Those who submit to the verbal abuse of others are also being emotionally abused into submission.

The social stigma created by this form of abuse contributes to the isolationist nature of the destructive cult.  When cult followers are manipulated into the approval of and the participation in emotional abuse, whether verbally abusing others or simply nodding a head or saying “Amen”, emotional abuse becomes a core value to the group’s integrity and is often used as a tool for punishment or further isolation.  Those who do not fully submit to the group’s rules and regulations are often the target of false accusation using the forms of emotional abuse most frequently used by the leaders.  Those who leave the group also become targets, and it is very effective.  Normal human emotions that would occur when a member leaves the group are suppressed when the former member becomes the target of verbal abuse — one emotion is replaced with another.  I, myself, was falsely accused of being homosexual as a tool by cult leaders to suppress the critical information that I had discovered, and some former members later informed me that this false accusation delayed their examination of the critical information for a long period of time.

For the person struggling internally with issues that are openly ridiculed or “bashed”, the pain runs deep.  While other struggles based upon cult doctrine may be discussed to receive encouragement, sympathy, counseling, or guidance, struggles that are the focal point for verbal and emotional abuse cannot.  Cult members have been manipulated, by example, to practice verbal and emotional abuse for those issues instead of offering help.  This, really, is the what differentiates a destructive cult group from a religious cult group.  William Branham’s “Message” cult is not unique in their religious beliefs concerning homosexuality, and sermons discussing passages from the Christian Bible against homosexuality are widespread even among some denominations in mainstream Christianity.  Healthy churches offer help and support for any issue, homosexuality or not, while destructive churches train members to discriminate and practice abuse.

Like any situation involving discrimination, human rights and human dignity is at risk.  All humans have a natural desire to help other humans, and a sympathy for those in need of help.  When a destructive group replaces that natural, human desire of love for other humans with hatred, they have also robbed them of their dignity and freedom and replaced them with captivity and oppression.

2. Jacobsen: What is the form of women-bashing?

Collins: In William Branham’s “Message” cult following, the New Testament passage from 1 Corinthians 11:3 describing male leadership is preached, while Galatians 3:28 describing equality is generally ignored.  The passage in Corinthians describes the hierarchy of leadership from God the Father, to God the Son, to males, to females.

“But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” (1 Cor 11:3) 

This passage is used and preferred, because it supports William Branham’s theological stance that women are inferior to men.  Branham taught that females were a “by-product” of man, and not in the original creation[i].  Interestingly, this passage is also used by mainstream Christianity as an example of a clear picture of the Trinitarian Godhead, which later versions of William Branham’s stage persona rejected.[ii]  While rejecting the relationship between God the Father and God the Son in the passage from 1 Corinthians, most versions of William Branham’s stage persona avoided the passage from Galatians 3 promoting equality, or re-purposed it to promote his male-only creation theology.[iii]

Galatians 3 describes the Apostle Paul’s views on racial, social, and gender equality.  Verse 28 states,

“There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. 

Galatians 3:28

Many Christian apologists use this verse as an example to claim that early Christians were advanced in teaching equality compared to other religions in the ancient world[iv], though historically, some ancient civilizations did practice equality in one or more of the three categories mentioned by in the passage from Galatians.[v]  In William Branham’s “Message” cult following, however, all three categories are rejected in full.  William Branham claimed that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not intended for the Jews[vi], that Christians were supposed to “forfeit their rights”[vii], and that the female human was less in stature than a dog or a hog.[viii]

This misogynistic theological stance leads to all forms of abuse – verbal, emotional, and even physical.  By example, “Message” cult leaders use quotes from the transcript of William Branham’s sermons to ensure that women are “in their place”[ix], submissive, obedient, and silent[x].  Some “Message” cult pastors expand upon this theological view to introduce additional misogynistic doctrines and rules, disallowing women to have religious discussions without men present.  Others preach entire sermons that are parroting Branham’s misogynistic teaching that women are inherently evil by design[xi], and must contain that evil at the risk of eternal damnation.

As a result, women are unknowingly trained to accept verbal abuse as “correction”.  Adolescent girls are trained to believe that their bodies were designed by Satan[xii] for sex[xiii].  Teenage girls are forced to believe that William Branham is the authority on doctrine and scripture[xiv], and that his praise given to those who practice physical abuse[xv] for women who do not adhere to the cult’s dress code is both acceptable and “commissioned by God”.  Mothers are trained to believe that it is OK for their husbands to follow William Branham’s advice and physically abuse both them[xvi] and their daughters, and that husbands who do not are “sissies”.  In other words, it goes far beyond “woman-bashing”.  Women are forced to believe that Branham’s verbal abuse is “godly”, that verbal and emotional abuse by current cult leadership is “righteous”, and that verbal, emotional, and physical abuse by their spouse or father is “justified”.

3. Jacobsen: What is the form of remarriage-bashing?

Collins: Remarriage after divorce, except in cases of the death of a current or former spouse, is a delicate subject within most Christian communities.  There are specific passages in the New Testament that instruct married couples not to separate until death[xvii], as well as passages that consider remarriage after divorce of a living spouse to be adultery[xviii], which is in violation of the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament[xix].  Unfortunately, there are no Biblical instructions describing the many complex situations that occur within a marriage, or how Christians should behave towards those who knowingly or unknowingly broke those rules by remarrying after divorce.  Fundamentalist Christians and many Christians with fundamentalist leanings view these passages as black-or-white and do now allow for the “gray”.  Remarriage after divorce is strictly forbidden in fundamentalist Christianity.  In most versions of William Branham’s stage persona, this was the doctrinal position presented.[xx]

Christians without fundamentalist leanings take a more moderate approach.  They still believe remarriage after divorce while the spouse is still living to be sin, as the Bible states, but also believe that Jesus Christ died for that sin.  As with any other personal issues considered to be sinful, advice and support is offered.[xxi]  Each divorce case is considered to be unique, and attempts are made to save marriages whenever possible.  In cases where a spouse is abused or in danger, however, separation is advised.

Though these two positions are the exact opposite of each other, both approaches have some common ground.  After the divorce and remarriage is finalized, healthy churches on both sides offer their love and support to the new couples that emerge.  Members are not ridiculed for their decision, are not insulted during sermons, and are not severed from fellowship.  This is not the case in the unhealthy churches that exist on the fundamentalist side.  Since there are no biblical instructions explicitly stating how one should behave towards a remarried couple, those new couples who “broke the rules” and remarried are targets for verbal and emotional abuse.  William Branham “Message” cult churches, which fall into this category, are no exception.

4. Jacobsen: What is the social stigma around the rejection of the purported revelations?

Collins: Much like the cases of “breaking the rules” for remarriage or dress code, those who reject “supernatural” claims by William Branham become targets for verbal and emotional abuse.[xxii]  Even in cases where members reject a claim made by William Branham that has unequivocally been proven false, they face discrimination and sometimes isolation from current members that support the false claim.  In many cases, this happens at the instruction of the cult leaders.[xxiii]  “Message” cult pastors, attempting to halt the spread of critical information, have quickly learned that truth can only be stopped by silencing those asking questions.  Rather than address William Branham’s false claims in transparency before their congregations, most cult pastors choose the pathway of least resistance.  Only a handful of “Message” cult pastors have attempted to publicly address the controversial issues, and a majority of those are now former members.[xxiv]

This typically occurs indirectly rather than directly, however.  When it has been learned that one or more members of a cult church have discovered the critical issues with “supernatural” claims, cult pastors shame current members by ridiculing or cursing former members who disagree with William Branham’s false claims.  Those who reject the claims are labeled as incompetent or ungodly while being cursed to all sorts of tragedies and eternal damnation.  Former members have described their former cult pastor claiming that “hell will not be hot enough” for those who reject Branham’s claims, and others describe sermons predicting God’s wrath on those leaving the cult by claiming that “sometimes God likes a good killing” (implying that those leaving might die).  To the target of the curse or ridicule, these statements are harmless.  To members of the congregation who have discovered the critical research, however, it is an indirect form of emotional abuse that transitions into a social stigma and fear of consequence.  That stigma worsens after participating in cult gatherings where the pastor’s opinion is favorably discussed.

As the listener follows the pastor’s abusive statements to their logical conclusion, they connect the examination of critical facts to losing their “salvation”.  Under this type of fear, to avoid eternal damnation, one must also avoid questioning William Branham and/or the pastor’s authority.  Unfortunately for members of a destructive religious cult, this fear of eternal damnation is far greater than all other consequences.  It is almost crippling.

5. Jacobsen: How does the community react to claims of an individual member losing supposed salvation? 

Collins: In destructive cults, the group’s members become one body of people that is either physically or mentally disconnected and/or isolated from other bodies of people.  In religious cults that are destructive, this separation is based upon beliefs of salvation.  In the case of a destructive cult based upon Christianity, for instance, the group has mentally isolated themselves by believing that their particular group will earn salvation while all other Christian groups will not.

Doomsday cults such as William Branham’s “Message” cult[xxv] are even more destructive.  In religious doomsday cults, cult doctrine and beliefs are structured in such a way that members focus more intently upon life after death than life before death, and life itself is devalued by predictions of destruction.  Members are manipulated into thinking that this world and all that is in it has no meaning, and that after the destruction predicted by the cult leader, only those who believe that leader or share his or her doctrinal beliefs will survive.  With destruction “imminent”, and all personal connections outside of the cult about to be severed, non-cult connections (those who did not earn salvation) are devalued, including former members.

Without having been involved in a destructive cult, it would be very difficult to understand the mental separation that occurs when a former member leaves, or more specifically, “loses their salvation” by leaving or rejecting the cult leader.  In these cases, there were strong personal connections, often with many members of the cult.  Yet because they are no longer associated with the cult’s perception of “salvation”, they are now supposed to be “spiritually” severed from the cult and its members.  Cult members that have been manipulated into believing the cult’s isolationist doctrine are faced with internal conflict due to their deep personal and emotional ties as those connections sever.

In some cases, these personal and emotional ties cannot be broken, and it leads to more members “losing their salvation” as they, too, begin to question the destructive nature of the cult.  Unfortunately, in many instances, this is not the case.  Cult members unable to resolve the internal conflict and are forced to resolve it by “grieving a loss”.  Similar to a death in the family, cult members enter the process of grieving, loss, recovery, and then disconnection.  Once disconnected, the result is “shunning”, whether physically or emotionally, as a self-defense mechanism to prevent reconnecting to a cult member that has now become a non-cult member.

6. Jacobsen: How can former members heal? 

Collins: As you can imagine, all of this is extremely painful for former members of a cult.  Many describe it as the single-most difficult time of their lives.  While their connections suffer through the stages of grief, they too must grieve their own losses.  Even through some friends and family that are still cult members may have not physically severed ties, their view of the former member has now changed from “one of us” to “not of us”, and they are forced to emotionally disconnect.  When a former member begins to experience emotional shunning by people they have known for many years — sometimes their entire lives, they also enter self-defense mode.  Cult members become “one of them” while the entire rest of the world becomes “us” – reversing the problem.  Even cult members who are genuinely making an attempt to be kind and sympathetic are mentally grouped with those who have caused great pain, and eventually, ties are severed from both ends.

Though it is a slow and painstaking process, former cult members must re-establish themselves in the world without relying upon any ties to cult members.  New peer groups must form, with new circles of friends and new support.  Old memories now painful must be replaced with new memories more pleasant.  Former cult members must find people who energize them and avoid people who drain them of energy until they are healed enough to energize others.

This is not to say that current cult members cannot be part of this process — they certainly can, but they must not be the only form of support and friendship.  Their ties may seem strong during the initial break, but they may not always be.  It is difficult to heal from the larger separation when dealing with the repeated pain of additional separations.

7. Jacobsen: How can homosexuals, women, the remarried, and the doubters find help and a way out of “The Message”?

Collins: For anyone attempting to escape from a destructive cult, no matter the reason or situation, it is best to begin establishing a support group prior to leaving.  No matter what a person is dealing with, whether it be homosexual tendencies, abuse, divorce, or other, there are many, many people who have endured similar painful situations.  Find others to ask for advice.  In some cases, counselling or therapy is helpful.  Find a psychologist familiar with destructive religious cults.  Don’t be afraid of medication; several people who have escaped require anxiety or anti-depressant medicine for a period of time, some long-term due to the trauma of separation.

Be prepared to give an answer as to why the choice was made to leave.  This seems to be the most difficult part of leaving a cult for many people: the fear of a heated argument or debate with people who no longer share the same core values and will not understand why.  Yet in almost every instance of a person leaving a cult, this is an inevitable situation.

Before the information age, researching was a very difficult task.  By design, destructive cults conceal critical information.  Finding that information was a challenge.  In today’s world, however, information is abundantly accessible — both critical and non-critical.  Newspaper archives, government archives, online resources and more provide a means to learn about many cult groups and their structure.  By learning how other cults behave and operate and identifying the similarities between other cults to their own, a cult member can easily list reasons why staying would be a bad idea.

In the case of William Branham, however, finding critical information is extremely easy.  Not only are there numerous research sites publishing information concerning William Branham’s “Message” cult and the many sub-cults that were created after, Branham’s sermon transcripts from 1947 to 1965 have been made public and searchable[xxvi].  Former members can easily query against his transcripts to identify conflicting statements between different versions of William Branham’s stage personas[xxvii], list the very destructive doctrines Branham taught[xxviii], and describe Branham’s prophecies that have failed[xxix] or his teachings that do not align with Biblical doctrine.[xxx]

8. Jacobsen: How did William Marrion Branham blast remarriage after divorce throughout “The Message” ministry? Yet, he permitted or even helped brothers remarry several times.

Collins: Historians have erroneously described William Branham as an evangelist having consistent views during his twenty to thirty-year career by using only the later versions of his stage persona, which in many cases was a persona strongly opposed to remarriage after divorce.  Because that history has been mostly written by “historians” sympathetic to William Branham’s cult following, other versions of Branham’s stage persona with differing doctrinal positions[xxxi] appear to have been purposefully omitted.

William Branham is typically described as a “non-Trinitarian”[xxxii] “Baptist”[xxxiii] minister who after the Ohio River Flood of 1937 came in contact with Pentecostalism and a “supernatural” experience that led to his “Message” of hyper-fundamentalist Pentecostalism.  Yet he was baptized and ordained in a Pentecostal church as early as 1932[xxxiv], worked closely with the United Brethren Church during the time a Brethren minister performed his second marriage ceremony[xxxv], and for almost a decade used a Trinitarian stage persona[xxxvi].  Not only did his doctrinal views change between different versions of his stage persona, his doctrinal stance changed with his varying religious affiliations.  Those changes range from core values such as the nature of God to his views on remarriage after divorce.

It is interesting, however, that during the time William Branham primarily used a stage persona claiming to be a fundamentalist Baptist minister — which would have at the time opposed remarriage after divorce — Branham performed the marriage ceremonies for his brothers after they divorced and remarried multiple wives[xxxvii].  As late as 1941, William Branham’s core values off stage do not appear to match his core values on stage.

It is also interesting that most historians and even cult members claim that William Branham was opposed to remarriage after divorce, when the 1965 version of his stage persona was not fully opposed.  In most versions of Branham’s stage persona, William Branham did claim to be opposed to remarriage after divorce for both men and women.  After his son’s marriage, divorce[xxxviii], and remarriage, however, Branham’s stage persona created an exception for the case of men (not women) who wished to remarry after divorce.  In a 1965 sermon entitled “Marriage and Divorce”, Branham began teaching that “he can, but she can’t.”[xxxix]  In that version of his stage persona, William Branham avoided all passages in the New Testament that describe men remarrying after divorce as adultery.  Luke 16:18 was avoided entirely.

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Luke 16:18

It would be very difficult to understand how that William Branham could preach so strongly against remarriage after divorce on stage while performing the wedding ceremonies for divorced couples offstage without having the full and complete historical information concerning Branham’s multiple stage personas.  Especially when historians have been misinformed about the “consistency” of Branham’s doctrinal positions and so much critical information has been withheld.  Once his varying stage personas are examined, and his conflicting doctrinal positions are compared, it becomes more apparent that the man on stage with his multiple personas were not the same as the man off stage.

Appendix I: Footnotes

[1] Author; Founder, William Branham Historical Research.

[2] Individual Publication Date: March 22, 2020:; Full Issue Publication Date: May 1, 2020:

[i] “Look, a woman is not even so low… She’s not even a creation in God. She’s a by-product..”

Branham, William. 1956, Jul 15  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[ii] “Now, my precious brother, I know this is a tape also. Now, don’t get excited. Let me say this with godly love, the hour has approached where I can’t hold still on these things no more, too close to the Coming. See? “Trinitarianism is of the devil!” I say that THUS SAITH THE LORD! Look where it come from. It come from the Nicene Council when the Catholic church become in rulership. The word “trinity” is not even mentioned in the entire Book of the Bible. And as far as three Gods, that’s from hell. There’s one God. That’s exactly right.”

Branham, William. 1961, January 8. Revelation Chapter Four 3 Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[iii] William Branham’s transcripts from 1947 to 1965 mention the “male nor female” passage in his 1965 sermon “Marriage and Divorce”, which claimed that women were the lowest of animals on the earth.  “When, in God’s sight, the Word, she is the lowest of all animals that God put on the earth.  Branham, William. 1965, Feb 21.

[iv] Groothuis, Douglas.  Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith.  pp 107

[v] “The first systematic analyses of equality as a concept comes from the Greeks of the classical age, which is perhaps not surprising given their intense interest in mathematics. One of the most thorough of these early systematic explorations of equality was undertaken by Aristotle (384–322 B.C.E.) in several of his works.”

Equality Overview: Ancient Views Of Equality.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[vi] “Before this Message is over, you’ll see it’s THUS SAITH THE LORD, by Word and by Spirit. Israel will be converted over, the whole nation, in one night. The Bible said so. But the Gospel is not even to them. There is a few renegades that’s out, and so forth like that, that come in, and outside the main body of Jews, that come in and get saved.”

Branham, William.  1961, July 30.  Gabriel’s Instructions To Daniel.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[vii] “It’s your American privilege, you say. Oh, yeah. If you’re a lamb, a lamb forfeits his rights. He don’t have but one thing: wool, and he forfeits that. If you’re a lamb you’ll forfeit your American rights to serve God.”

Branham, William.  1962, July 13.  From That Time.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[viii] “There is no hog, no dog, or no other animal, designed like her or can stoop as low as she can stoop. Now, that is true.”

Branham, William.  1965, Feb 21.  Marriage and Divorce.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[ix] “But woman’s place is at home in the kitchen, and when she leaves that she’s out of her place. Exactly right.”

Branham, William. 1957, Jul 27.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[x] “I wished I had time to read that from the Greek here, what it said. Said, “If your women want to know anything, let them ask their husbands, because it’s shameful and disgraceful for a woman to even speak in the church. The Greek says that—I mean, the Hebrew. “As also saith the law let them be in silent with all subjections to the pastor

Branham, William.  1959, Jun 28.  Questions And Answers.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xi] “Excuse this, young ladies. She is nothing but a human garbage can, a sex exposal. That’s all she is, an immoral woman, is a human sexual garbage can, a pollution, where filthy, dirty, ornery, low-down filth is disposed by her. What is she made this way for? For deception. Every sin that ever was on the earth was caused by a woman. And an analyst just from Chicago, a—a woman wrote this article, the police force; that they chased down, in United States, metropolitan United States, that “Ninety-eight percent of every crime that was ever did in any form, in the United States, there was either a woman in it or behind it.”

Branham, William. 1965, Feb 21.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xii] “You may question me about Satan being her designer, but that’s the Truth. Satan designed her. He still does it.”

Branham, William.  1965, Feb 21.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xiii] “But she is designed to be a sex act, and no other animal is designed like that. No other creature on the earth is designed like that.”

Branham, William. 1965, Feb 21.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xiv] “I am God’s Voice to you. See? I say that again. That time was under inspiration.”

Branham, William.  1951, May 5 – My Commission. Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xv] “You would find out how illiterate they were. She’d beat her till she’d be so full of welts, you couldn’t get the clothes over the top of them. That’s what needs to be done tonight.”

Branham, William. 1956, Jul 28. Making The Valley Full Of Ditches Shreveport.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xvi] “All right, men, here you are. Any man that’ll let his wife smoke cigarettes and wear them kind of clothes, shows what he’s made out of. He’s not very much of a man. That’s exactly right. True. He don’t love her or he’d take a board and blister her with it. You know that’s the truth. Now, I don’t say that to be smart. I’m telling you the truth. That’s right.”

Branham, William.  1958, Mar 24.  Hear Ye Him.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xvii] Ex: “A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 7:39

[xviii] Ex: “But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”  Matthew 5:32

[xix] “You shall not commit adultery.” Exodus 20:14

[xx] Ex: “Now. First Corinthians, 7th chapter, 15th verse. Now, the question they asked: Brother Branham, does this mean a sister or a brother is free to remarry? No. See, you don’t get his question there and what he’s saying. They’re not free. See, that would make a contradiction in the Scripture, and the Scriptures doesn’t contradict themselves at all.”.

Branham, William. 1962, May 27. Questions And Answers.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxi] Ex: 3 Beautiful Truths Every Divorced Christian Needs to Know.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxii] Ex: I’m A Survivor.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxiii] Ex: A Long Journey.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxiv] Ex: William Branham and my Deliverance from A Religious Prison.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxv] Doomsday Predictions.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxvi] The Table.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxvii] Stage Persona.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxviii] Ex: Justification, Sanctification, and the Holy Spirit.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from,_Sanctification,_and_the_Holy_Spirit

[xxix] The Prophecies of William Branham Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxx] Ex: William Branham and the Bible .  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxxi] Ex: Trinity.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxxii] Ex: William Branham.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxxiii] Ex.  Concerning Cults-William Branham (Part 1). Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxxiv] “I am the minister who received Brother Branham into the first Pentecostal assembly he ever frequented. I baptized him, and was his pastor for some two years. I also preached his ordination sermon, and signed his ordination certificate, and heard him preach his first sermon.” (Rev. Roy E. Davis.)

Wm. Branham’s First Pastor.  1950, Oct.  The Voice of Healing.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxxv] Meda Branham.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxxvi] Trinity.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxxvii] Ex. Jesse Branham.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from

[xxxviii] Willam Branham alleged that the marriage of his son was annulled, but court records confirm their separation by divorce in the Clark County Courthouse.

[xxxix] “See, she has got a living husband, so no man can marry her. Care what she does and who she is, she’s got a living husband, there is no grounds for her at all. But, it’s not, for him. “Causes her,” not him. Get it? You have to make the Word run in continuity. See, nothing saying he couldn’t, but she can’t. See, “causes her,” not him. That’s exactly what the Bible says, “causes her.” It is not stated against him to remarry, but “her.” Why? Christ in the type. Notice, it is stated that he cannot remarry, only a virgin. He can remarry. He can, he can remarry again if it’s a virgin, but he can’t marry somebody else’s wife. No indeedy. And if he does marry a divorced woman, he is living in adultery, I don’t care who he is. The Bible said, “Whosoever marrieth her that is put away, liveth in adultery.” There you are, not no divorcees. See that original back there, “from the beginning,” now? Remarrying, now notice, he can, but she can’t. Like David, like Solomon, like the continuity of the whole Bible, now, same as David and the rest of them.”

Branham, William. 1965, February 21. Marriage And Divorce.  Accessed 2020, Feb 27 from


In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at


© Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content. All interviewees and authors co-copyright their material and may disseminate for their independent purposes.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: