Skip to content

Responding to William Marrion Branham’s Community

2023-07-30

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2023/07/29

There were some interesting and thoughtful responses to “Cases of Abuse and Cults – William Branham.” Based on the feedback, some of the article has been updated on May 27, 2020. Other factors will be covered here. Future pieces will cover the Casting Pearls Project of Jennifer Hamilton and the William Branham Historical Research of John Collins in more depth in individual pieces with the interviews provided by the two of them with me, as well as building networks for women to acquire help and how to identify abuse in a church setting. Altogether, these can provide a sufficient resource for individual members of The Message.

You can find many other writings on the formerly or the non-religious at Canadian Atheist with insightful and thoughtful content from Derek Gray, Diane Bruce, Ian Bushfield, Indi or Mark A. Gibbs, Heidi Loney, or Shawn the Humanist, or external voices brought in to build an internationalist sensibility or more varied national sense of the freethought community with the “Ask” series, whether Melissa Story, Reverend Gretta Vosper, Autumn Reinhardt-Simpson, Professor Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, and Joyce Arthurfrom Canada, Takudzwa Mazwienduna, Alton Mungani, and Shingai Rukwata Ndorofrom Zimbabwe, Annie Laurie Gaylor, Herb Silverman, Mandisa Thomas, Faye Girsh, Terry Waslow, Dr. David L. Orenstein/Dave Orenstein/David Orenstein, Rob Boston, Kim Newton, M.Litt., Shirley Rivera, Minister Amanda Poppei, and Justin Scott from the United States of America, Omar Shakir (in Jordan) on Israel and Palestine, Mubarak Balaand Dr. Leo Igwe from Nigeria, Jani Schoeman, Rick Raubenheimer, and Wynand Meijerfrom South Africa, Nsajigwa I Mwasokwa (Nsajigwa Nsa’sam) from Tanzania, and Kwabena “Michael” Osei-Assibey from Ghana.

Other great Canadian content, as noted in “And now, a word from our sponsors…,” can be seen in orbiting critical voices, including Eiynah or Eiynah Mohammed-Smith of “Polite Conversations” and Nice Mangoes (Facebook and Twitter), Laurence A. Moran of Sandwalk, the Brainstorm Podcast (Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube), Left at the Valley (Facebook and Twitter), Ashlyn Noble Gem Newman, Ian James, Lauren Bailey, and Laura Creek Newman at Life, the Universe & Everything Else (Facebook), Cristina “JUNO and Platinum award winning music publicist” Roach, Adam “fighting evil by moonlight” Gardner, Darren “crash from Krypton” McKee, and “the engine that keeps TRC going” Producer Pat of The Reality Check (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram), and Bad Science Watch (Facebook and Twitter), British Columbia Humanist Association (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and MeetUp), and more.

The series of articles on William Branham emerge in the context of letters sent to me (from believers – even a deacon and a police chaplain). I took the liberty of parsing some of the contents and contexts into some digestable segmentations for the purposes of critical examination in a wider series of considerations of The Message theology of the late William Branham while connecting these concerns with responses provided by modern reason, rights, and science considerations. These will separate into Positive Life Experiences, Eyewitness Accounts, Opinions of Others, Women’s Rights, and Science. The coverage will proceed in that ordering.

Positive Life Experiences

One of the themes in the letters sent as a reaction to “Cases of Abuse and Cults – William Branham” was the sense of a life or a period after conversion of perpetual or mostly positive experiences within The Message churches and, therefore, reflective of the moral rightness of Branham and the correctness/inerrancy of both the Bible and the verbal delivery of Branham. This is a claim and, in a sense, a tight argument, which is good. Its framework seems relatively well-defined and made as a subjective claim appearing as if objective as to the transcendental truths of Branham and the Bible. One of the simpler ideas can come in the form of fantasy ideas accepted as fantasy by most adults in a North American sociocultural context while handed to children as a truism in the figure of Santa Claus in a full white beard, diabetes-inducing belly, rosy cheeks, pale North Pole face, red hat and suit edged by fuzzy white poofs and a big black belt. All equipped with flying reindeer (wings not necessary), a sleigh, and an infinitely bottomed present sac with the Christmas gifts made by the loyal elves of the North Pole factories. One hopes they get a living wage.

A fantasy idea in the lives of many North American children with associations of family, parents, maybe siblings, presents, candy, and more. All for a young child’s fantasy surprise. However, as we know, Santa Claus, if claimed as real, and if believed, can lead to an individual holding false beliefs and harbouring false knowledge about the world while having mostly positive experiences as a result. Even though, these bring positive experiences to the lives of the child. In no way does this substantiate the claim, thus, on the basic claim of a positive life experience under the theology of Branham, this fails to support the strength of the claim. Otherwise, one would have the ability to claim the same about the Santa Claus in a fantasy example as opposed to a non-fantasy example in the case of William Branham. This amounts to an argument against positive experiences leading to truth claims about a worldview rather than truth claims about the positive experience. To the positive experiences expressed by members of The Message community to me, I believe the claims wholeheartedly; however, I cannot extend the truth of positive experiences for some select individual members of the community into the illegitimate extrapolation to truth claims about the Bible or The Message from the late William Branham.

Eyewitness Accounts

On eyewitness accounts of the individuals within The Message, this can be a trickier or murkier subject matter for members within The Message diaspora around the world or under the banner of a common theology of Branham’s interpretation of the Bible because science can be seen as something of the devil and science of eyewitness testimony, i.e., the psychological science of individual observation, advanced to a sufficient point to make eyewitness claims extremely uncertain at best, unreliable at a minimum. In that, Drs. Daniel M. Bernstein/Daniel Bernstein, Cristina Atance, Geoffrey R. Loftus, Andrew Meltzoff, and generations of others have been influenced in the cognitive sciences by the pioneering and sociopolitically consequential work of Professor Elizabeth Loftus at the University of California, Irvine on research into eyewitness testimony. Professor Elizabeth Loftus showed a lot of ways in which eyewitness testimony can be (and is) unreliable because human beings cannot process information in an adequate manner. We evolved; thus, we’re good enough for some ancestral environment for the passing of genes into the next generation, not to maximize intelligence, fidelity and comprehensiveness of memory.

Any examination of the list of cognitive biases can provide an insight into the evolved biases in human thought. Quite naturally, any evolved trait will have subsequent limits to provide some new capacity – can do some things and not other things. In this new capacity, we come to the functionality for some tasks. If cognitive tasks, then this becomes a limitation in cognition as a result, which leads to all sorts of strange phenomena. With some research, you can see some of the fascinating work on Hindsight Bias by Dr. Daniel Bernstein/Dr. Daniel Bernstein at Kwantlen Polytechnic University, especially Auditory Hindsight Bias. More to the point, and based on the expert association statements on eyewitness testimony, it is unreliable. Any claims of miracles, of performances, of claimed historical events and the like, can be taken within the light of modern psychological science on eyewitness testimony.

Duly note, if the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and other books or sacred texts comprising the Bible or the biblical accounts rely on eyewitness testimony, and if this became the basis for theology, hermeneutics, biblical exegesis, or some base textual analysis of the purported eyewitness accounts or statements recorded in a script for future generations to read, then these would become empirical questions bound by the modern psychological science of eyewitness testimony. This fact (and argument) should be getting far more attention. It is a freethought view on the biblical accounts. Individuals like Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou have been in the public eye in a similar way, especially in Europe, as a prominent freethinker voice for Bible scholars. Because she is a Bible scholar who loves the text, in and of itself, while taking a rational and empirical approach to the claims within the Bible. Anyhow, more to the central point of eyewitness testimony and psychological science, the associations devoted to psychological science have been highly critical of the colloquial claims about eyewitness testimony, as noted in several statements by leading organizations or publications, even a bibliography is on board. Psychological Science states:

Memory doesn’t record our experiences like a video camera. It creates stories based on those experiences. The stories are sometimes uncannily accurate, sometimes completely fictional, and often a mixture of the two; and they can change to suit the situation. Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence for convicting the accused, but it is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses. So memory can be remarkably accurate or remarkably inaccurate. Without objective evidence, the two are indistinguishable.

Scientific American states:

The uncritical acceptance of eyewitness accounts may stem from a popular misconception of how memory works. Many people believe that human memory works like a video recorder: the mind records events and then, on cue, plays back an exact replica of them. On the contrary, psychologists have found that memories are reconstructed rather than played back each time we recall them. The act of remembering, says eminent memory researcher and psychologist Elizabeth F. Loftus of the University of California, Irvine, is “more akin to putting puzzle pieces together than retrieving a video recording.” Even questioning by a lawyer can alter the witness’s testimony because fragments of the memory may unknowingly be combined with information provided by the questioner, leading to inaccurate recall.

American Psychological Association states:

Iowa State University experimental social psychologist Gary Wells, PhD, a member of a 1999 U.S. Department of Justice panel that published the first-ever national guidelines on gathering eyewitness testimony, says Loftus’s model suggests that crime investigators need to think about eyewitness evidence in the same way that they think about trace evidence.

“Like trace evidence, eyewitness evidence can be contaminated, lost, destroyed or otherwise made to produce results that can lead to an incorrect reconstruction of the crime,” he says. Investigators who employ a scientific model to collect, analyze and interpret eyewitness evidence may avoid incidents like Olson’s potentially flawed identification of the Fairbanks suspects, he notes.

In fact, Wells says that other evidence techniques, such as police lineups, are similar to scientific experiments. In lineups, the police have a hypothesis, they provide instructions, collect responses and interpret the results. As such, the same factors that can bias the results of an experiment can bias an eyewitness’s performance in picking suspects out of a lineup, he says.

Oxford Bibliographies states:

Eyewitness testimony is critically important to the justice system. Indeed, it is necessary in all criminal trials to reconstruct facts from past events, and eyewitnesses are commonly very important to this effort. Psychological scientists, however, have challenged many of the assumptions of the legal system and the general public regarding the accuracy of eyewitness accounts. Particularly dominant in the psychological science literature are the views that memory reports are malleable (i.e., changed by suggestive questioning), that witnesses can be made to be extremely confident in inaccurate memories, and that police lineups should follow a careful protocol in order to avoid high rates of mistaken identification. The principal methods used by psychological scientists for examining the accuracy of eyewitnesses involve creating events that unsuspecting people witness and then collecting their reports about what they saw. Because the events were created by the researchers, these reports can be scored for their accuracy and completeness. In this way, researchers can systematically manipulate various factors (such as stress, view, the use of misleading questions, the instructions given prior to a lineup) to determine what variables influence accuracy and completeness. This body of research has its programmatic origins in the mid- to late 1970s, but it received a large boost to its credibility in the 1990s, when forensic DNA testing began to uncover convictions of innocent people. Over 75 percent of these exonerations are cases involving mistaken eyewitness identification. The discovery of these mistaken identifications and resulting wrongful convictions has been a jarring event for the legal system and threatens public faith in the criminal justice system. Accordingly, eyewitness research today is having a larger impact on the legal system as the legal system recognizes that eyewitness errors are leading to faulty trial outcomes. 

With these statements, since the 1970s and due to the beginning (and ongoing) work of Professor Elizabeth Loftus, we will see, and continue to see, the erosion of the eyewitness as a high standard in courtrooms, in other legal settings, and in the psychological science, in particular cognitive science, literature. In short, the claim of William Branham as a mortal, though a Prophet, or a mortal and a fraud, make the same claim as an individual who lives, breathes, poops, pees, and yells at crowds about the blessings of Christ and of the heavenly rewards of the righteous. A man with oratory skills and a man of his time, who spoke in the manner of the culture, of his constituency, of the ordinary American fundamentalist believer. We cannot trust eyewitness accounts in the case of Branham or others purporting to witness other miracles as a rule of psychological science, modern cognitive science, with the basis in human beings as the metric, and humans stink at measurement; we’re unreliable, hence why eyewitness testimony is unreliable.

Opinions of Others 

There were some other points about the personal opinion or the opinion of others about Branham, even on a surface level. Individuals who have left The Message theology due to abuse realize the nature of an ordinary man proclaiming himself as God. Others who do not leave The Message theology can see the man as one of the time, of the era. Message believers in the churches throughout the world consider this man the last Prophet of God Almighty who shall bring forth righteous unto God (The Message believers).

However, if we examine the simple nature of individual beliefs inside of the structure of The Message, and outside of The Message, there are some important considerations about character analysis, as reflected through a prism of The Message believers and those without this belief structure. These, simply and fundamentally, come back down to the basis of opining or personal opinion giving in which individual opinions do not change the fact of the matter, whether prominent religious believers or not. Indeed, many Christians do not accept The Message of William Branham, which becomes an aspect of this entire endeavour.

As a small point, in my country of Canada, whether Cloverdale Bibleway, Edmonton Living Word Assembly, Grace And Truth Message Tabernacle, Bible Believer’s Fellowship, Manifested Word Fellowship, or the End Time Message Tabernacle, one can be certain of the high praise of Branham within those churches, fellowships, or tabernacles. Even with these opinions, they would not change the facts of the matter about a large number of things, including eyewitness testimony, positive life experiences, or the science (incoming). (This isn’t a larger claim here, but this is a smaller claim oriented around unified theology, differentiation in practice, and opinions as an insufficient basis for substantiation of theology, including all the various testimonies.)

Women’s Rights 

Women’s rights remain foundational to the entire endeavour to the secular movements around the world and the instantiation of a more just and equitable world around us. When the framing of human rights naturally incorporates women’s rights, as women are humans (as Margaret Atwood notes or strongly cautions against any separation), the developments for further equality in the modern world found themselves on human rights and humanitarian law rather than transcendental law espoused by particular religions. The former, human rights and humanitarian law, incorporates the freedom to believe for the secular and the religious on equal footing while the latter, transcendental law espoused by religions, permits the rights for the “righteous” (the right religion religious) and not for the non-religious.

Any secular advancement and equality for all religions will be developed through the international institutions developed since the end of the Second World War, as noted by individuals as luminous as Albert Einstein noted some of these ideas when speaking of a “supranational” authority. Something akin to this idea would involve an international set of institutions developed for the inclusion of every actor, minor or major, with rules for everyone, as created in the international human rights and humanitarian law frameworks guiding the international systems today. These are the rules of the game. When it comes to rights, women’s rights have a particular stature. I have been going through many of the relevant documents for rights today at The Good Men Project under the stellar leadership of Lisa Hickey, Lisa Blacker, and Wilhelm Cortez. You can find the stipulations or buttresses on many aspects of the international community devoted to women’s rights here:

Documents

Strategic Aims

Celebratory Days

Guidelines and Campaigns

All these stipulate an ongoing and several decades-long formal (and longer informal) effort to provide some level of equality for women, naturally, with men. All of the stipulations cover either general or particular aspects of equality for women with men, whether by age so girls with boys or women with men, by war status so non-combatants murdered disproportionately by combatants and being mostly women and children, by economics and social status and so SES equality or parity with men based on different definitions, and so on. One member of The Message community stated Branham supported women’s rights in a number of ways. However, when I reviewed the idea of “rights” within The Message, it, in matter of fact, reflected the opposite of the rights stipulated in even the most basic documents or ideas celebrated in the events and days devoted to them. Take, for example, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the Preamble, Article 16, and Article 25(2),” as the listed document and parts of the foundational United Nations rights text, there are clear statements of universality, as follows:

Preamble

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world…

…human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people…

…human rights should be protected by the rule of law…

…Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom…

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms…

…Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples… to the end that every individual and every organ of society… shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction…

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 25.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Each part above in the Preamble, Article 16, and Article 25(2), take seriously the idea of the equality of women with men in an environment in which women have not had equal access to opportunities, resources, leisure, or education and work, while this remains a continually improving facet of global culture and ethics. In Canadian society, we see a wide range of organizations taking different ideological stances while standing firm on the fundamentals of women’s equality including the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, CARE Canada, REAL Women of Canada, Canadian Women’s Foundation, Manitoba Political Equality League, Vancouver Rape Relief & Women’s Shelter, Canadian Women’s Press Club, Vancouver Women’s Caucus, Local Council of Women of Halifax, Canadian Federation of University Women, the Almas Jiwani Foundation (formerly UN Women Canada), Dominion Women’s Enfranchisement Association, Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women, Fédération des femmes du Québec, National Council of Women of Canada, Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, Canadian Women’s Suffrage Association, Oxfam Canada, The MATCH International Women’s Fund, Nobel Women’s Initiative, Equal Voice, LEAF, Department for Women and Gender Equality, Royal Commission on the Status of Women, National Action Committee on the Status of Women, and Pauktuutit.

Yet, even with this external sense, whether national organizations or international rights documents, of women’s rights, the internal to The Message sense of rights become highly peculiar. For example, William Branham, the ‘Prophet’ himself, viewed women as “human garbage,” “the lowest of all animals that God put on the Earth,” “the very lowest creature on the Earth,” “filthy,” some women should be shot, women can’t drive, women should stay in the home, and that Satan or the devil made women, and more. Please see below for some remarks from the late Mr. William Marion Branham, the Founder of The Message:

  • 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.
  • When, in God’s sight, the Word, she is the lowest of all animals that God put on the earth.
  • This was my remark then, “They’re not worth a good clean bullet to kill them with it.” That’s right. And I hated women. That’s right. And I just have to watch every move now, to keep from still thinking the same thing.
  • When I was a little, bitty, ol’ boy, up there, I’d see them women come up there on the road, and their… know their husband was out working, them up there with some guy, drunk; on the side of the road, and they’d walk them up and down the road, sober them up enough to get them home, cook their husband’s supper. I said they ain’t worth a clean bullet to go through them. That’s right. I said they’re lower than animals, would do a thing like that. And I… When I was seventeen, eighteen years old, I’d see a—a girl coming down the street, I’d cross over on the other side, I said, “That stinking viper.” See? And I would have been a real hater, but when I received God in my heart, God let me know that He’s got some jewels out there, He’s got some real ladies. They’ll not all defile themselves like that; thank God for that.
  • Now, you can take some of these little two-by-fours if you want to, but that’s what God said. That’s what Christ said. Now, that’s the truth. Oh, God be merciful. What must the great Holy Spirit think when He comes before the Father? You say, “Why you picking on us women?” 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.
  • Women, there was only one woman in the Bible that ever painted her face, and that was Jezebel. And God fed her to the dogs. So if you see a woman wearing that, you can say, “How do you do, Miss Dogmeat?” That’s exactly what God called her. He fed her to the dogs. Exactly right.
  • You may question me about Satan being her designer, but that’s the Truth.
  • That’s what they were doing in Sodom and Gomorrah. The natural use our bodies… The men become so plain to women today, there’s not even respect. They’ll hardly take off their hat, men will in front of women, and they have no respect for them at all. What did it? The women done it theirself. And you all talking about juvenile delinquency and things. I think it’s parent delinquency. Some of you let your girls go out and run around all night with a cigarette-smoking, cocktail-drinking party. Come in the next morning with her clothes half off her, old make-up all over her face and that, And you call the Kentucky mothers ignorant. Write her patch down with those Dogpatch, Lil’ Abner, and make fun of the Kentucky mothers. That’s some of my people up in there. Let one of them girls…?… it up there and, brother, I’ll tell you, she wouldn’t get out of bed for six months. She’d take a hickory limb and beat what clothes she had left on her off. And if you had something like that back in the church today, you’d have better. Amen. God give us the old time mothers. I’ve got two girls coming. I don’t know what they’ll be.
  • And I’ve see them laying out on the beaches half naked before man stretching themselves out there, say they get a sun-tanning. Brother, I — I may not live. But if God lets me live and keep my right mind, if one of mine does it, she’ll get a son-tanning. It’ll be Mr. Branham’s son with a barrel slat behind her. She’ll be tanned all right. She’ll know where it come from too. Yes, sir. 
  • And now, some of you talk about the illiteracy of the hillbillies up in Kentucky there. But how the old grandmas with their long bonnets and things on… You know what? They could teach some of you city people how to behave yourself. That’s right. Your little Martha Ann come in of a nighttime, and mess-up all over her face, and half drunk, and smoking a cigarette, and blowing it through her nose, and the stomp her foot, and scream at you. Let her do that to one of them old Kentucky mammys one time. She’d top a hickory, boy, or take something, or a barrel slat. When she got through, she’d know who was mammy around there. If you’d do that, you wouldn’t have so many wrong men, and boys and girls in the world tonight. Let one of them strip theirselves in some these old dirty clothes like you let your kids wear out here, little old shorts, and ever what they call them. And let them one time. Uh-huh. 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. That’s right.
  • And we, not knowing it, turns right straight back to heathen worship again, to Women, the very lowest creature on the earth.
  • Well, the other day some crazy woman driver drove right in front of me, come pretty near killing two of my children. I said, “Lady.” She said, “Now, you shut your mouth; I’m the one that’s driving.” And before I got back, twenty-six women driver’s almost caused us to be killed. We kept count of it. They made a mistake when they give her a driver’s license. They put her out here to voting. They put her out here to these public works. And during the time of the war, right in New York City, more illegitimate children was born in the city of New York, of prostitute women, and their husbands overseas, than there was soldiers killed in the four years of war.
  • Notice, there is nothing designed to stoop so low, or be filthy, but a woman. A dog can’t do it, a hog can’t do it, a bird can’t do it. No animal is immoral, nor it can be, for it is not designed so it can be. A female hog can’t be immoral, a female dog can’t be immoral, a female bird can’t be immoral. A woman is the only thing can do it.
  • I predicted that women would keep demoralizing and the nation would keep falling, and they’d keep hanging to mother, or like mother like that, till they become, a woman become an idol. And after a while, that America would be ruled by a woman. Mark it and see if it’s not right. A woman will take the place of a President or something, of great, some high power in America. When… I say this with respect, ladies. When a woman gets out of the kitchen, she’s out of her place. That’s right. That’s where she belongs. Outside of that, she has no place. And now, I’m not hard on them, but I just tell what’s the Truth and what the Bible. Used to be the man was the head of the house, but that was in Bible days. He isn’t no more. He’s the puppet, or he’s the—or the babysitter or something. And now… No, they want to take care of a dog, practice birth control, and pack a little old dog around in their arms all the time, so you can run around all night.
  • Today, women is so brassy! Every… Their husband can’t even talk. They got to stick right out there, a cigarette in their hand, a pair of shorts on, doing all the talking. How a perverted race of people, she’s got to be chief cook and bottle washer, everything else! When she leaves the kitchen, she leaves her place of duty, right, as a mother. Now we find out, women then stayed back and behaved theirself, acted like ladies, their head was the one who did the decisions and things.

Please sit and reflect on the nature of the quotations and the ways in which the man compared to gentle Jesus meek and mild makes violent statements and extensive commentary one can deem as gender inegalitarianism external to The Message, while, to some who sent sincere letters to me, the espousal inside of The Message would deem these as gender equal statements.

Commonly, as in the Beijing Declaration or in the United Nations/World Health Organization, the main forms of violence against women taken into account are physical, sexual, and psychological (including emotional). In a minimal comparison, I would argue many of these statements would fall in the line with some of them. Even a glance at “lowest of all animals that God put on the earth” or as “human garbage” seems unequal to men to me, if we take this in a strictly Christian theological logic sense, this seems consistent as inequality. Unless, the men are the co-equal lowest of all animals that God put on the earth, which would be logically untenable as human beings, in Christian theology, stand above the rest of Creation as the pinnacle of God’s excellence as a crafter of mud/dirt and rib. If Mr. Branham harboured women’s rights defender status within The Message, then his stature would exist completely at odds with most or all meanings accepted as “women’s rights” outside of The Message established in an international context and taken as a consensus. Do women deserve living under such a theology proclaimed as building lives of equality of women with said assertions of “women’s rights” while in opposition to widely accepted standards at odds with the proclamations of the international community, or even with other denominations of Christianity with liberal theological leanings? The churches may function independently; although, if they didn’t function under The Message theology, then they would not exist as The Message churches.

There are a number of confirmed cases through reportage by the Casting Pearls Project. I would hope members and leaders in The Message would commend the bravery and the honesty of these women coming forward rather than shunning or denying them, i.e., churches in North America should praise the work of the Casting Pearls Project and give explicit positive coverage to it, whether in media, on church websites, in public statements, local news, or elsewhere. If not, then they’d merely confirm the tentative diagnosis of a destructive cult. I would hope to see that in church and ministry videos and writing in Canada and elsewhere in the future. Perhaps, you, individual believer, can encourage this in the relevant locale. I leave this section with the final word to women who reported stories in the Casting Pearls Project:

Anna-Lisa A. in “Turning Pain Into Power”:

If you are reading this and have questions or doubts about leaving this cult that has you bound, do NOT let those fears hinder you from accepting your truth. Ask questions. Research. Never stop finding your truth. You know what your truth is, and only you can make that first step. I won’t lie to you. It is very scary having the entire foundation of your belief/relationship with God crumble before your very eyes. But I promise you, if you just hold on to the truth that you deserve so much more, it WILL be worth it.

You are a queen, a survivor, a warrior. You possess strength that you haven’t even tapped into yet. I want you to know that in a sea of doubters, haters, and unfortunately, family and friends who will make you their enemy, I believe in you. Darling, just make that first step towards your truth, and watch your life become everything you have ever desired it to be. This is not the end.

This is your comeback.

Christine H. in “Breaking The Chains”:

I married at a very young age (barely 17). It was expected that we marry young and not risk making “mistakes” before marriage. I went from being in a very controlling home, to being married and becoming a submissive wife. I was always raised with the idea that a man was to have the say in the home and that my place was to make him happy (in my mind, at all costs). This wasn’t how my childhood home worked, but it was what I was taught. I already had “pleaser” type of personality. This came from trying to please everyone in hopes of them being proud of me, and the dire need to be good enough. Both sides of the family were very controlling; my family would try to control what I wore and what I did even as a married woman. I never dreamed my life would turn out the way it did. It wasn’t long before the stress of life grabbed our young home, and I found myself in an abusive marriage. After almost 11 years and two children, we ended in a divorce. I felt destroyed, knowing I was committing the forbidden sin. Once again, more hurt and abuse by people that were supposed to love me the most. The pain felt unbearable. Why was I so unlovable? Why could people physically and mentally hurt me, knowing they were causing me pain, but still say they loved me?

The spiral began. My family could only see that their daughter was now divorced and how that was going to look to everyone in the “Message”. I was told I had no rights, but no one wanted to know my story. 

Joyce A. Lefler in “From Miracle to Murder”:

Branham taught that women are Satan’s partners in bringing down the morality of all men. He preached sexual discrimination, belittling, and sexual objectification of women. He believed women were “nothing but a garbage can” and “dog meat.” Branham admonished men to beat their wives “with oak slats until their clothes and skin peeled off” for the transgression of sunbathing. Men had permission to divorce their wives if they cut their hair. Instead of being treated as a precious jewel and partner in life, a woman was to be treated as a slave – good for breeding and for maintaining a home but nothing else. Education was now of the devil, especially for a woman. I graduated salutatorian of my high school class, but my dream of becoming a physician was broken. I was forced to say NO to scholarships that would have allowed me to attend college and eventually support myself.

Dating led to sin, so very young girls and boys were told to marry. Wives were expected to shut up, obey their husbands, and have babies. They had no right to ask for more. I became engaged without going on a single date. Within two weeks of marriage, my “Message” husband humiliated, cursed, raped, and beat me. His behavior became a habit. I often had bruises on my face, arms, and legs. Even with the modest cover-up clothes I wore, the bruises were not easy to ignore. When I cried out for help to my “Message” parents and my “Message” pastor and church, they ignored the bruises, turned their backs on me, and advised me to obey my husband. I was told to stop being stubborn so he wouldn’t have to beat me. 

Science

On science, this becomes a slightly easier item to tackle in the queue because of the robust nature of the findings of modern science now. Fundamentalist communities all over the world have cosmogonies and philosophies of life. One from The Message appears to differ with the expert consensus of modern cosmology. One individual, in a letter, stated Branham supported science. I disagree for some reasons. If we take the fundamental view of the biological world given by evolution via natural selection, then evolution via natural selection is a given, whether for the biological sciences or the medical sciences.

Let’s conclude on a straightforward example, we have the presentation of a real historical Adam and Eve. No evidence for this theological hypothesis has ever come forward, insofar as I know, with wide acceptance amongst the individuals most qualified to make the assessment, i.e., the scientific communities with relevant training and academic background. Now, this extends into the doctrine entitled the Serpent Seed Doctrine. In the basic idea, Branham claimed the offspring of Cain, rather than Abel, resulted from intercourse between a snake/serpent and a human female, Eve. This is anti-scientific. Cain’s descendants known as “a big religious bunch of illegitimate bastard children.” This means a “serpent” claimed as the gap between chimpanzee and man. Chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and homo sapiens are cousins with a common ancestry, common descent, not human beings coming from chimpanzees. Even on this fundamental doctrine to The Message theology, the claims fail to stack up.

He misunderstood science. Branham made outrageous claims on basic principles of evolutionary theory, and science. He would assert infallible visions. However, in a matter of fact, this stance stands in precise opposition to the attitude, spirit, and process of science. An attitude of skepticism, a spirit of empiricism, and a process of hypothesizing, testing, tentative confirmation/failed confirmation, followed by more testing/re-hypothesizing, and repeat. Indeed, if science is of the devil (“Knowledge, science, Education, is the greatest hindrance that God ever had. It is of the devil,” “…knowledge and science, and Christianity, has no fellowship at all. One is of the devil, and the other one is of God,” or “Education, science and civilization, is of the devil. That’s right. It isn’t of God. It is of the devil.”), and if Mr. Branham supported science as per some supporters of him, then Mr. Branham, the man of God, in fact roundly supports that which he claims was of the devil. Is Mr. Branham supportive of God, in his theology, or of that process of science, which he deemed the work of the devil? He rejected foundations of science, claimed occasional infallible visions, and called science the work of the Devil. He was anti-science.

Oh, and I don’t much care or don’t take seriously claims of the supernatural for the photograph with the ‘halo,’ either, but that’s another story.

License

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 www.in-sightpublishing.com.

Copyright

© 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.

From → Chronology, Jacobsen's Bank, The Good Men Project

Leave a Comment

Leave a comment

«
»