Responding to Allistair Francis

Click on headings to expand them, or links to go to specific articles.

Click here to find out about THE definitive book on William Branham - Under The Halo: Examining the Legacy of William Branham

Introduction

On January 16, 2026, Allistair Francis, a message preacher in South Africa, published the first of a video series on YouTube titled Discouraged by the Message and the Prophet: The Message on Trial. There are currently 5 videos in the series. The individual videos are referenced specifically in each one of our articles as listed below. Each article contains a detailed analysis and rebuttal of all of the arguments that are made in the videos.

We include a conclusion based on our analysis which is contained below.

NOTE: If you find any inaccuracies or incorrect information, please let us know any we will correct it as soon as we are able.

Links to other articles in the series

This article is one in a series on Allistair Francis' defence of the message - you are currently on the topic that is in bold:

• Overview
• The Message on Trial - Part 1 - The Initial Defence
• The Message on Trial - Part 2 - The Counterattack
• The Message on Trial - Part 3 - The Counteroffensive
• The Message on Trial - Q&A - Questions & Answers
• The Message on Trial - Part 4 - Finding the Balance

Conclusions based on our review

Across five installments and nearly ten hours of content, Pastor Allistair Francis has provided the most thorough defense of the Message that a sincere, articulate, well-intentioned pastor could offer — and it amounts to nothing. Let the record reflect what ten hours of the Message's best defense actually produced: 1. He has not read the evidence and proudly refuses to. 2. Evidence is irrelevant to faith and examining it is a sign of mental instability. 3. William Branham's teachings are "part of the Bible" — a claim that would make Branham a biblical author. 4. The Message will survive because most followers will never engage with the criticism — an explicit endorsement of ignorance as strategy. 5. Those who leave end up in a "dark place" of obsession, trolling for dopamine — spiritual terrorism aimed at young people. 6. Happy worship services prove the Message is true — a standard that validates every religion on earth. 7. The real Message is a personal mystical experience that outsiders cannot understand or evaluate — the unfalsifiable fortress of every cult. 8. Human judgment is too flawed to evaluate prophetic claims — a framework that protects every false prophet in history. 9. Critics are sincere Christians who love Jesus — a concession that undermines six hours of attacks on their character. 10. The fault for people leaving traces to "William Branham and not even message people" — an admission that the prophet himself is the problem. Not one of these propositions addresses the documented evidence. Not one explains a single failed prophecy, changed story, or fabricated historical claim. The entire defense — across all five installments — is organized around deflection, emotional appeals, philosophical tangents, and the explicit rejection of evidence-based evaluation. This is not apologetics. This is evasion. Why Intelligent People Stay Before proceeding further, intellectual honesty requires acknowledging something important: many intelligent, sincere, genuinely spiritual people find deep meaning in the Message. They are not stupid. They are not all victims of manipulation. Many have found genuine community, spiritual transformation, and a framework that helps them understand Scripture and live faithfully. Their experiences are real. This rebuttal is not arguing that Message believers are foolish or insincere. The critique is more specific: subjective spiritual experience, however genuine, cannot validate objective prophetic claims. Every religion on earth has sincere adherents with powerful testimonies. Mormons describe burning-in-the-bosom confirmations. Jehovah's Witnesses describe lives transformed by "the truth." Pentecostals outside the Message describe healings, prophecies, and encounters with the Holy Spirit. These experiences are not evidence that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, that the Watchtower speaks for God, or that any particular leader has divine authority. The question is not "do people have genuine experiences in the Message?" They clearly do. The question is: "Did William Branham's specific, testable prophetic claims come true?" This is a factual question with verifiable answers. The brown bear was either killed or it wasn't. Donny Morton was either healed or he died. The India crusade either produced "tens of thousands times thousands" of converts or it didn't. These are not matters of spiritual interpretation — they are matters of historical record. People stay in the Message for many reasons: genuine faith, family ties, community belonging, fear of leaving, spiritual experiences, or simply never having examined the evidence. This rebuttal does not condemn anyone for staying. It simply presents the documented facts so that people can make informed decisions. What each person does with that information is between them and God. The Feeble Defense of a "Vindicated Prophet" Consider what Francis has actually done across ten hours of video: he has defended William Branham the man while completely abandoning William Branham's claims. The Message movement calls Branham a "prophet vindicated by God" — vindicated by the cloud, vindicated by prophecies, vindicated by supernatural signs. These are not peripheral claims. They are the foundation. They are why the Message exists as a distinct movement. They are why people are told that Branham is "part of the Bible." Yet when faced with documented evidence that these vindication claims do not hold up to scrutiny, Francis does not defend them. He cannot defend them. He admits the cloud is not public vindication. He admits Branham's accounts were "conflicting in the details." He tells his audience not to argue with critics because "you'll just come up short." And when pressed on the bridge, the brown bear, the fabricated meetings with world leaders, and the failed "Thus Saith the Lord" prophecies, he simply refuses to engage — declaring that he doesn't need to examine evidence because he already knows what he believes. This is not defense. This is surrender dressed in defiance. If Branham was truly vindicated by God, the vindication should be defensible. If the supernatural cloud was real, explain it. If the prophecies were fulfilled, show us. If the stories are true, produce the evidence. Instead, even the most articulate defender the Message can offer spends three videos telling young people not to look at the evidence, not to engage with critics, and not to expect answers. What kind of vindication requires its defenders to forbid examination? What kind of truth needs its followers to remain ignorant? How can the Message call Branham a "vindicated prophet" when his own defenders cannot defend the vindication? The defense rests — not because the case has been made, but because it cannot be made. The defense has effectively conceded by telling the jury not to look at the evidence. The Pharisees of the Message: A Biblical Parallel The structure of Francis's teaching mirrors the Pharisees' errors with alarming precision — the same errors Jesus condemned in the harshest language He ever used. 1. Adding Tradition to Scripture and Making It Equal to God's Word Jesus rebuked the Pharisees: "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition... Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition" (Mark 7:9, 13). Francis declares that Message believers see Branham "not as above the Bible but rather as part of the Bible" ([26:10–26:17]). This is precisely what the Pharisees did — elevating their traditions (the "oral Torah") to canonical status alongside Scripture. The Message has done the same with Branham's 1,100+ sermons. You cannot understand the Bible correctly without them. You cannot be part of the Bride without accepting them. The practical effect is identical to what Jesus condemned: God's Word is made of none effect because it must be filtered through a human teacher's interpretation. 2. Binding Heavy Burdens They Will Not Touch "For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers" (Matthew 23:4). Francis himself acknowledged the legalistic burdens in Message churches: members told what color to paint their houses, what cars to buy, women forbidden from cutting hair or wearing pants, entertainment restrictions, marriage restrictions. These are heavy burdens with no biblical basis — traditions of men elevated to spiritual requirements. And when people buckle under the weight, they are told they lack faith. When they leave, they are called "turncoats" who end up in a "dark place." The burden-makers feel no obligation to justify the burdens — only to punish those who refuse to carry them. 3. Shutting Up the Kingdom of Heaven "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in" (Matthew 23:13). Francis tells young people not to examine the evidence. He tells them that engaging with critics means they will "come up short." He warns that those who leave go to a "dark place." He declares that testing claims is something "nobody in his right mind" would do. What is this but shutting up the kingdom? He is standing at the door of honest inquiry — the very door Scripture commands believers to walk through (1 John 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 5:21) — and telling people not to enter. He is blocking access to the truth while claiming to protect them from deception. 4. Making Converts Twofold the Children of Hell "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves" (Matthew 23:15). The Message movement is evangelistic — but what are converts being converted to? Not simply to Christ, but to a system that requires belief in Branham's prophetic authority, acceptance of extra-biblical doctrines (Serpent Seed, the Church Ages, the Seven Seals framework), rejection of "denomination," and submission to pastoral authority structures that Francis himself admits produce "cultish behavior." A person could come to the Message seeking Jesus and end up in bondage to a system that makes leaving feel like apostasy. They are converted not merely to Christ but to Branham — and extracting themselves later will cost them everything. 5. Straining at Gnats and Swallowing Camels "Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" (Matthew 23:24). Francis spends hours parsing whether critics have the right to question, whether their tone is acceptable, whether they were "really" in the Message, whether AI wrote their rebuttals, whether they are "turncoats" or "hurt people" or "indoctrinated" by websites. These are gnats. Meanwhile, the camel sits in the middle of the room: Branham made specific, testable claims that are demonstrably false. The bridge story changed. The meetings with world leaders never happened. The "Thus Saith the Lord" prophecies did not come to pass — the brown bear, Donny Morton, the India crusade. Francis strains at every gnat of procedural objection while swallowing the camel of a failed prophetic record without a word of explanation. 6. Outward Righteousness, Inward Problems "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness" (Matthew 23:27). Francis presents beautiful images of Message life: joyful worship, happy families, vibrant communities. And no doubt much of this is genuine. But he also admits that Message churches have produced "cultish behavior," that some are "without a doubt just cults," that people have been "severely injured by church tradition," that legalism is "off the charts" in some congregations. The movement looks beautiful from the outside — but Francis himself has acknowledged the rot within. And rather than addressing it with repentance and reform, he pivots to defending Branham and dismissing those who were harmed. 7. Claiming to Honor the Prophets While Rejecting Their Message "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets" (Matthew 23:29–30). The Pharisees honored dead prophets while rejecting the living Word standing before them. Francis honors the Bible while rejecting what it plainly teaches. Scripture says to test prophets — Francis says don't. Scripture says prove all things — Francis says evidence is the enemy of faith. Scripture says the Bereans were noble for searching — Francis says searching is what "nobody in his right mind" would do. He garnishes the tomb of biblical authority while rejecting the Bible's actual commands. 8. Despising Others While Claiming Righteousness "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others" (Luke 18:9). This describes the Pharisee in Jesus's parable who thanked God he was not like "other men." Throughout his videos, Francis repeatedly dismisses critics as "stupid," "silly," "pathetic," and "ignorant." Those who leave are "turncoats" who go to "dark places." This dismissive posture — attacking questioners rather than answering questions — is not the spirit of a shepherd seeking lost sheep. The Message in Pharisee Clothing What Francis teaches is not biblical Christianity dressed in Message terminology. It is Pharisaism dressed in Message terminology: • Where the Pharisees added the oral Torah, the Message adds Branham's sermons • Where the Pharisees bound legalistic burdens, the Message binds dress codes and lifestyle restrictions • Where the Pharisees shut up the kingdom through human tradition, Francis shuts up inquiry through anti-evidence epistemology • Where the Pharisees made converts to their system, the Message makes converts to Branham • Where the Pharisees strained at gnats, Francis strains at critics' credentials while ignoring failed prophecies • Where the Pharisees appeared righteous but harbored corruption, the Message appears beautiful while admittedly producing cults • Where the Pharisees honored dead prophets while rejecting Scripture, Francis honors the Bible while rejecting its commands • Where the Pharisees despised others, Francis dismisses questioners Jesus had gentleness for sinners, patience for doubters, and compassion for the confused. But for the Pharisees — the religious leaders who burdened people with human tradition, who shut up the kingdom, who appeared righteous while leading people astray — He had only woes. Francis should consider carefully which category his teaching falls into. The Biblical Obligation to Test Prophets Let this be stated with absolute clarity, since Francis has spent ten hours obscuring it: questioning prophetic claims is not merely permitted by Scripture — it is commanded. To refuse to test a prophet is not faith. It is sin. It is disobedience to explicit biblical commands. It is exactly what false prophets want you to do — and exactly what Scripture warns you not to do. Francis has spent ten hours suggesting that examining Branham's claims is spiritually dangerous, that faith operates "in spite of evidence," that questioning is the mark of a hard heart or a defective mind. This is not biblical Christianity. It is the exact opposite of what Scripture teaches. And it is not merely wrong — it is dangerous. It is the teaching that makes deception possible. It is the philosophy that keeps people trapped in falsehood. It is the doctrine of the false prophet's best friend. The Bible Commands Testing — And Francis Commands the Opposite: • "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). The word "try" (Greek: dokimazō) means to test, examine, prove, scrutinize. John does not say "believe every spirit unless you have a bad feeling." He does not say "believe every spirit unless the prophet seems insincere." He commands active testing — precisely because false prophets exist and are dangerous. Francis says the opposite: don't test, don't examine, faith operates "in spite of evidence." Francis is teaching people to disobey this verse. • "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). "Prove" (Greek: dokimazō again) means to test by examination. Paul does not say "prove most things." He does not say "prove things unless a prophet has a nice testimony." He does not say "prove things unless examining would make you uncomfortable." All things. Including prophetic claims. Especially prophetic claims. Francis says the opposite: examining evidence is what "nobody in his right mind" would do. Francis is teaching people to disobey this verse. • "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:22). This is not a suggestion. This is not optional. This is God Himself providing the test for prophetic claims: Did the prophecy come to pass? If not, the prophet spoke presumptuously — and you are commanded not to fear him. You are commanded not to follow him. You are commanded to recognize that he did not speak for God. Francis wants you to do the opposite: ignore the failed prophecies, don't apply the test, keep following, keep fearing. Francis is teaching people to disobey this verse. • "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). The Bereans did not simply accept Paul's teaching because he was an apostle. They did not say "faith is in spite of evidence." They did not refuse to examine. They searched. They verified. They tested. And Scripture calls them "more noble" for doing so. Not rebellious. Not faithless. Not hard-hearted. Noble. Francis calls the same behavior "stupid," "silly," and the mark of someone who is not "in his right mind." Francis is calling the Bereans insane. Francis is calling noble behavior ignoble. Francis has it exactly backwards. The Consequences of NOT Testing: Scripture also warns what happens when people fail to test prophets — which is to say, when people follow Francis's advice: • "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6). Destroyed. Not mildly inconvenienced. Destroyed. This is what happens when people don't examine. This is what happens when people follow Francis's teaching. • "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears" (2 Timothy 4:3). People who refuse to test will accumulate teachers who tell them what they want to hear. The refusal to examine is not protection from deception — it is the cause of deception. • "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matthew 7:15). Jesus commands us to beware — to be on guard, to watch out, to examine. How can you beware of false prophets if you refuse to examine prophetic claims? Francis's epistemology makes this command impossible to obey. Francis Is Teaching People to Sin: This must be said plainly and without equivocation: Francis is teaching people to disobey Scripture. He is instructing them to do the opposite of what God commands. He is dressing disobedience in the language of faith and presenting credulity as if it were trust in God. He is calling sin virtue and virtue sin. When he says "faith is absolutely in spite of evidence," he contradicts 1 Thessalonians 5:21. When he says examining evidence is what "nobody in his right mind" would do, he calls the Bereans insane. When he tells young people not to engage with documented criticism, he instructs them to disobey 1 John 4:1. When he dismisses failed prophecies without applying Deuteronomy 18:22, he rejects God's own test. This is not a minor interpretive disagreement. This is a fundamental rejection of Scripture's explicit commands regarding prophetic evaluation. And Francis is doing it while claiming to defend biblical Christianity. The irony is staggering. The danger is real. The biblical position is unmistakable: • Testing prophets is COMMANDED (1 John 4:1) • Proving all things is COMMANDED (1 Thessalonians 5:21) • Searching to verify is NOBLE (Acts 17:11) • Applying Deuteronomy 18:22 is REQUIRED — it is God's own test To refuse to test is not faith. It is unfaithfulness. It is disobedience. It is exactly what false prophets need their followers to do — and exactly what Scripture warns against. The person who examines Branham's claims against the evidence is obeying God. The person who refuses to examine — who calls such examination "stupid" and "silly" and "pathetic" and the mark of mental deficiency — is the one in rebellion against Scripture. Francis has it exactly, completely, catastrophically backwards. And the young people listening to him deserve to know the truth: questioning is not the enemy of faith. Questioning is what faith looks like when it takes Scripture seriously. Questioning is what obedience looks like when you actually believe 1 John 4:1. The people telling you not to question are not protecting you. They are trapping you. The people who maintain critical websites, who write these rebuttals, who make these videos — the vast majority of them are not motivated by hatred of William Branham or contempt for Message believers. They are Christians who did exactly what Scripture commands: they examined specific claims, tested them against the evidence, and found them wanting. They want others to have access to the same information so they can make informed decisions. They are doing what the Bereans did. They are doing what Paul commanded. They are doing what John commanded. They are doing what God commanded in Deuteronomy 18:22. The purpose has never been to destroy anyone's faith. The purpose is to ensure that faith rests on the right foundation: Jesus Christ alone. Not a denomination. Not a prophet. Not a system of teachings about seals and thunders and church ages. Not loyalty to a man whose historical claims can be tested and, when tested, fail. Jesus Christ — the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). Millions of Christians worldwide live joyful, Spirit-filled, morally serious, theologically rich lives without William Branham. Their faith is not inferior. Their worship is not shallow. Their salvation is not in question. They serve the same Christ, read the same Bible, and are indwelt by the same Holy Spirit. No additional prophet is required. To the young people Francis addresses throughout this series: you are not betraying Christ by asking whether a man told the truth. You are not abandoning faith by examining evidence. You are not turncoats for changing your mind when the facts require it. You are not entering a "dark place" by following the Berean example. You are doing exactly what the Bereans did, exactly what Paul commanded, and exactly what honest faith demands. And the God who said "come now, and let us reason together" (Isaiah 1:18) is not afraid of your questions. A Personal Word to Young People in the Message As someone who grew up in the Message, I want to speak directly to you: there is life after the Message, and it can be beautiful. I know what you're feeling. The fear. The uncertainty. The sense that leaving means losing everything — your community, your family's approval, perhaps even your eternal salvation. You've been told that questioning is dangerous, that those who leave end up in a "dark place," that there's nowhere else to go. It isn't true. Life outside the Message can be fulfilling, joyful, and rich with purpose. You can have a vibrant relationship with Jesus Christ without William Branham. You can worship freely, love deeply, serve others, raise a family, and live with genuine peace — not the anxious peace of suppressing doubts, but the settled peace of a faith built on solid ground. Do not let your life be defined by "Brother Branham." Let it be defined by Jesus. He is enough. He has always been enough. The Christianity that existed for 1,900 years before Branham was born is still here, still true, still life-giving. You are not leaving Christ when you leave the Message. You may, in fact, be finding Him more clearly than ever before. The road out is not easy. There will be grief, confusion, and loss. But there is also freedom, growth, and a faith that no longer requires you to defend the indefensible. Thousands have walked this path before you. You are not alone. The Biblical Standard Remains: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him" (Deuteronomy 18:22). This standard is not cruel. It is not "anti-Branham." It is God's own safeguard against deception. And it requires the very thing Francis has spent three videos telling you to reject: evidence. STORY ARC: THE ANATOMY OF A DEFENSIVE RETREAT What the Five-Part Series Reveals About the Message Movement in Crisis Step back from the individual arguments and consider the series as a whole. What does the trajectory from Part 1 through the Q&A and into Part 4 reveal? The answer is striking: we are watching a religious movement in the early stages of an existential reckoning, and a pastor who — despite his intelligence and sincerity — has no substantive answers to give. The Catalyst: Young People Are Leaving Francis is explicit about what prompted this series. In Part 1, he describes being approached by "young people who feel confused about the message based on things they have heard online" and "parents of young people who are just not interested in coming to church anymore" ([Part 1, opening section]). He acknowledges that "some who have denounced the message" have left, and that parents "suffer in silence" while "churches dismiss those who leave as they were never seed to begin with." This is not a series born of theological curiosity or proactive teaching. It is a response to a crisis. Young people — the future of the Message movement — are reading critical material online, asking hard questions, and leaving. Parents are reaching out to Francis because they have nowhere else to turn. The institutional response ("they were never seed") is failing to satisfy anyone. Francis's series exists because the Message movement is hemorrhaging its youth, and the old answers no longer work. Part 1: The Pastoral Approach In Part 1, Francis adopts the tone of a concerned shepherd. He acknowledges real problems: cultish behavior exists, ministers have abused their authority, some churches are controlling. He positions himself as the reasonable voice — "I am the hardest on message people" — and presents his own upbringing as proof that healthy Message churches exist. The strategy is clear: concede the peripheral problems to defend the core. Yes, some churches are bad. Yes, some ministers abuse their power. But the Message itself — and the prophet — remain sound. Francis appeals to personal experience, to emotional connection, to the difficulty of proving miracles from 2,000 years ago. What Francis does not do in Part 1 is address any specific failed prophecy, any documented fabrication, any verifiable historical inaccuracy. He mentions that critics cite these things. He does not engage with them. Part 2: The Counterattack Something shifted between Part 1 and Part 2. Francis's tone hardens. The pastoral concern gives way to aggressive dismissal. He declares that "faith is absolutely in spite of evidence" ([38:21–38:24]). He dismisses newspaper records and witness testimony because the witnesses "didn't have the Holy Ghost" ([46:02–46:10]). He attacks the biblical standard itself, spending extended time arguing why Deuteronomy 18:22 shouldn't apply to Branham. Most notably, Francis turns on those who have left. He calls them "turncoats eating humble pie" ([2:00:30–2:00:34]). He blames them for creating "all the Branhamism that exists" ([2:01:21–2:01:36]). He describes them "tucking their tails between their legs" ([2:05:00]). What happened? Almost certainly, feedback. Part 1 generated responses — comments, messages, perhaps the very rebuttal you are reading. Young people pushed back. Critics pointed out what Francis had not addressed. And Francis, rather than engaging with the substance, escalated the rhetoric. This is a pattern familiar to anyone who has watched apologetics under pressure. When the gentle approach fails, the aggressive approach emerges. When you cannot win on evidence, you attack the people presenting it. Part 3: The Counteroffensive By Part 3, Francis is explicitly responding to written criticism. He speculates the rebuttal was AI-generated ([2:37–3:19]) — a way of dismissing it without engaging with it. He deploys the Walter Martin cult rubric, the Isaac Noriega cultural defense, the theological question barrage. He spends extended time attacking critics as "trolling for dopamine" ([19:01–19:07]) and going to "a dark place" ([14:02–14:08]). But the most revealing moment comes when Francis makes a stunning declaration: "We do not see brother Branham as above the Bible but rather as part of the Bible" ([26:10–26:17]). This statement — placing Branham's words on the level of Scripture — would be considered heresy in virtually any other Christian tradition. Yet Francis says it openly, perhaps not realizing how it sounds to anyone outside the Message. Part 3 also contains Francis's most explicit refusal to examine evidence: "I already know what I believe and I don't need to go and prove myself and my faith wrong with anything" ([10:33–10:43]). This is not confidence. It is retreat. It is the declaration of someone who has decided that the safest path is not to look. The Q&A: The Softening The Q&A session marks another tonal shift, this time in the opposite direction. Francis becomes more conciliatory. He acknowledges that critics "are sincere. They are not evil people who hated God or hate Christ" ([1:17:50–1:18:02]). He admits that ministerial failures — "covering up of scandals or abuse" — drive people away ([1:16:55–1:17:05]). He makes the extraordinary admission that "the reason for leaving the message would be the fault of William Branham and not even message people" ([1:20:44–1:20:57]). He even acknowledges, with striking candor, that the Message movement created authoritarian structures Branham never asked for: "We took people out of organized religion... and then we created a new message system that killed the ability to have revelation. We forced people to comply to new message traditions. We subjugated them under human leadership... We took away their free will" ([1:25:53–1:26:51]). Why the shift? Again, almost certainly feedback. The aggressive approach of Parts 2 and 3 likely generated its own backlash — perhaps from within Francis's own congregation, perhaps from parents who found the "turncoat" rhetoric unhelpful, perhaps from the very young people Francis was trying to reach. The Q&A reads like damage control: an attempt to walk back the harshest rhetoric while still defending the core. Part 4: The Declaration After the Q&A's surprising concessions, Part 4 represents yet another shift — this time toward a positive, declarative posture. Rather than defending against critics or softening his rhetoric, Francis attempts to articulate why Message believers believe. He presents five roles Branham allegedly fulfilled, argues that John the Baptist only fulfilled half of Malachi 4, and deploys Joshua and Elisha typologies to argue that the bride must continue Branham's work under the Holy Spirit's leadership. Most significantly, Francis makes two moves that cut against each other with remarkable force. On one hand, he insists that "not everything Branham said was Thus Saith the Lord" and that believers must not "live in the glare of another age" — genuine concessions that, taken seriously, would undermine the entire tape-playing culture of the Message. On the other hand, he maps Branham's sermons onto Joshua 1:7–8 — "this book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth" — effectively granting Branham's words scriptural authority while simultaneously claiming he is not doing so. Part 4's most dangerous contribution is the reinterpretation of Deuteronomy 18:22, where Francis argues that "presumptuously" merely means the prophet overstepped and "thou shalt not be afraid of him" merely means ignore that prediction — an interpretation that, if accepted, would eliminate the only objective biblical test for false prophets. The Constant: Refusal to Address Evidence Across all five installments — through pastoral concern, aggressive dismissal, counteroffensive, softening, and declaration — one thing remains absolutely constant: Francis never addresses the documented evidence. He never explains the brown bear prophecy. He never accounts for Donny Morton's death after a "Thus Saith the Lord" healing declaration. He never addresses the India crusade predictions. He never explains why the tent vision remains unfulfilled after sixty years. He never engages with the Municipal Bridge story discrepancies. He never addresses the fabricated meetings with world leaders. He mentions these things exist. He acknowledges critics cite them. He dismisses them as unworthy of his attention. But he never — not once, across more than ten hours of video — actually explains any of them. This is the tell. If Francis had answers, he would give them. If the brown bear had been killed, he would triumphantly produce the evidence. If the tent vision had been fulfilled, he would point to its fulfillment. If the India crusade had resulted in mass conversion, he would document it. He cannot, because none of these things happened. And so he is left with the only strategy available: attack the questioners, attack the standard, attack the very act of questioning — anything except engage with the questions themselves. The Dangerous Theology of "Who Are We to Question?" A disturbing theme runs throughout Francis's defense, and it deserves direct confrontation: the implicit — and sometimes explicit — message that failed prophecies are acceptable, that some things simply cannot be explained, and that questioning is itself an act of spiritual rebellion. "Who are we to question God?" becomes the refrain that silences all inquiry. This approach is not merely inadequate. It is dangerous, unbiblical, and a failure of pastoral responsibility. It Is Dangerous. When a religious leader teaches followers that failed prophecies should not trouble them — that unexplained failures are simply mysteries to be accepted — he removes every safeguard against deception. By this standard, no false prophet can ever be identified. Every failed prediction becomes a "mystery." Every documented lie becomes "something we cannot fully understand." Every verifiable falsehood becomes an opportunity to demonstrate faith by not questioning. This is exactly how spiritual abuse flourishes. This is exactly how cults maintain control. This is exactly what Scripture warns against. It Is Blind Faith That Scripture Condemns. Francis presents his refusal to examine evidence as a virtue — the mark of mature faith. But Scripture nowhere commends blind faith. Abraham asked God questions. Moses questioned God at the burning bush. Gideon demanded signs. The Bereans searched the Scriptures to verify Paul's teaching — and were called "noble" for doing so. Thomas doubted and Jesus responded with evidence, not rebuke. The biblical pattern is clear: God invites honest inquiry. He does not demand the surrender of critical thinking. Francis's epistemology — "faith is absolutely in spite of evidence" — is not the faith of Abraham, Moses, or the apostles. It is the faith of someone who needs his followers not to look too closely. It Is Heretical. This is a strong word, used deliberately. When Francis declares that faith operates against evidence, he contradicts the explicit commands of Scripture. First Thessalonians 5:21: "Prove all things." First John 4:1: "Try the spirits." Deuteronomy 18:22: "If the thing follow not, nor come to pass..." These are not suggestions. They are commands. God Himself established the test by which prophets are to be evaluated. When Francis teaches that this test should not be applied — or that applying it demonstrates a lack of faith — he is teaching people to disobey Scripture. He is calling disobedience virtue. He is dressing rebellion in the language of piety. This is not orthodox Christianity. It is its inversion. It Is an Abdication of Pastoral Responsibility. Young people are coming to Francis with genuine questions. They have encountered documented evidence. They are troubled. They are confused. They want answers. What do they deserve? They deserve a pastor who takes their questions seriously. They deserve honest engagement with the evidence they have found. They deserve either (a) substantive explanations that address their concerns, or (b) honest acknowledgment that the concerns have merit. What do they receive instead? They receive lectures about how questioning is spiritually dangerous. They receive warnings that those who examine evidence end up in a "dark place." They receive attacks on the character of people who raised the very questions they themselves are asking. They receive everything except what they actually need: truth. This is not the response of a shepherd. It is the response of someone who has no answers and hopes his flock will not notice. Francis may be sincere. He may genuinely believe he is protecting his people. But sincerity does not excuse the harm. When young people ask "Did Branham's prophecies come true?" and the answer they receive is "Who are you to question?" — that is not pastoral care. That is a failure of pastoral courage disguised as spiritual wisdom. The young people asking these questions are not rebels. They are not spiritually blind. They are not "anti-Branham." They are doing exactly what Scripture commands: testing claims, proving all things, and refusing to simply accept that failed prophecies are acceptable because a trusted authority says so. They deserve better than what Francis has given them across ten hours of video. They deserve honest answers — or honest acknowledgment that honest answers do not exist. What the Series Reveals The five-part series reveals a movement in crisis and a defense in collapse. The crisis is demographic. Young people are leaving. They have access to information previous generations did not have. They can read the documented evidence with a few clicks. They can connect with former members online. They can compare Branham's claims against verifiable history. And when they do, they leave. The defense is rhetorical, not substantive. Francis offers emotional appeals, logical fallacies, attacks on critics, attacks on the biblical standard, appeals to faith over evidence — everything except actual engagement with the documented claims. This is because the documented claims cannot be answered. The prophecies failed. The stories changed. The historical record contradicts the narrative. The feedback loop is visible. We can watch Francis adjust his approach in real time — softening when aggression backfires, hardening when gentleness fails to convince. This is not the behavior of someone with solid ground beneath his feet. It is the behavior of someone searching for a strategy that will work, because the obvious strategy (address the evidence) is not available to him. The core admission is devastating. Francis's repeated insistence that he will not examine the evidence is not confidence — it is confession. It acknowledges that the evidence exists, that it is substantial enough to potentially destroy his faith, and that his only protection is to refuse to look. This is not the posture of someone defending truth. It is the posture of someone protecting a belief he suspects cannot survive scrutiny. The Question Francis Cannot Answer Throughout this series, Francis has answered many questions. He has explained why he won't debate. He has explained why faith doesn't need evidence. He has explained why Deuteronomy 18:22 doesn't apply. He has explained why critics are in a dark place. He has explained why leaving leads to destruction. He has explained why the Message produces good fruit. But there is one question he has never answered — indeed, has explicitly refused to answer: Did William Branham's "Thus Saith the Lord" prophecies come to pass? This is the only question that matters. Everything else — the emotional appeals, the rhetorical strategies, the attacks on critics, the defenses against cult accusations — is distraction. The biblical test is simple: did the prophecies come true? Francis's refusal to answer this question, across five installments and more than ten hours of content, is itself the answer. The prophecies did not come true. Francis knows it. And his entire series is an elaborate attempt to make that fact not matter. But it does matter. It is the only thing that matters. And no amount of rhetorical maneuvering can change it. A Final Word to Pastor Allistair Francis Throughout this rebuttal, I have been critical — sometimes sharply so. But intellectual honesty requires acknowledging what is genuinely admirable, and there is something admirable in Pastor Francis. He is intelligent. He is articulate. He is clearly passionate about his faith and his community. Unlike many Message ministers who would never engage with criticism at all, Francis stepped into the arena. He read the comments. He acknowledged the concerns. He tried to respond. That takes courage, and it deserves recognition. More than that, across these five installments, Francis has shown a willingness to concede points when he recognizes their validity — even when those concessions work against his broader argument. He admitted the cloud is not public vindication. He acknowledged that Message ministers have abused their authority and covered up scandals. He agreed that much of "Branhamism" has no basis in what Branham actually taught. He recognized that critics are sincere Christians who love Jesus. He even stated that the ultimate reason people leave traces back to "William Branham and not even message people." These are not small admissions. They required intellectual honesty, and Francis deserves credit for making them. Which raises a question I have wondered about throughout this analysis: Why does Francis so adamantly refuse to read the documented evidence? He is clearly intelligent enough to engage with complex arguments. He read Robert Collins's atheist critique of Scripture and emerged confident. He can hold his own in theological discussions. He is not afraid of difficult questions — or at least, he is not afraid of some difficult questions. So why this one? Why the repeated insistence that he will not read the critical material, will not examine the evidence, will not engage with the specific documented claims? I wonder if, on some level, Francis already knows the answer. I wonder if he senses that the evidence is not like Robert Collins — not a challenge he can meet and move past, but a weight he could not set down once he picked it up. I wonder if his refusal to look is not the confidence he projects, but a quiet recognition that looking would cost him everything: his ministry, his community, his identity, his life's work. If that is the case, I have compassion for him. The cost of truth is real, and it is high. Leaving the Message — or even publicly questioning it — would mean losing much of what he has built. I do not say this to mock him. I say it because I understand. Many who have left the Message understand. The prison is comfortable precisely because the door is so frightening to open.

This document references the timestamped transcripts of Allistair Francis's video series "Discouraged by the Message and the Prophet — The Message on Trial" (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4 & Q&A). All timestamps refer to the respective video's runtime. Direct quotes are transcribed from the video audio.

Questions for Allistair Francis

QUESTIONS FOR FRANCIS: DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE Francis has spent 10 hours over 5 videos defending William Branham the man, attacking critics, and telling young people not to look at the evidence. But he has carefully avoided addressing what Branham actually taught. So let us ask some direct questions — using Branham's own recorded words — that Francis must answer if he wants to be taken seriously as a defender of the Message. But First: Francis Cannot Play Dumb Before we proceed, let us establish something important: Allistair Francis is not a casual observer of the Message. He is not someone who stumbled into this movement recently and hasn't had time to examine its teachings. He is a lifelong insider — raised in the Message, steeped in its doctrines, and personally connected to its highest leadership. In the book "Two Pioneers" — a tribute to Isaac Noriega published by Noriega's church — Francis contributed a written tribute and a poem that reveal the depth of his involvement: > "He [Brother Stephen Francis—Ed.] has always been a friendly person but has never allowed himself to get too close to anyone his entire life. People need friends because they need something and not to give. Dad never needed anything but the Word. Then, he started talking about a Brother Isaac Noriega from Arizona. I could hear that he was touched by this man's life. At first it sounded normal, but then he started visiting Tucson year after year. When I realized that my Dad finally had a friend, it intrigued me. I envisioned you to be just like my father. When I met you for the first time and visited Tucson later, I was shocked to see how different the two of you are. It took me a long time to understand this, but as I matured I realized that the only true friendships there are in the world are based upon the Word of God! I know now, that the only reason you are friends is because both of you respect each others' commitment to the Word and because you agree on the Word." And then this stunning admission: > "Brother Isaac, you may never know how much you mean to me. You and Dad have been to me the Word made flesh. I have never met Brother Branham to believe what he said was the truth! I have never known Christ, but through the two of you. I only believe that living the life of this message is worth the while, because of you and Dad. You and Dad have made this Word real to me." Francis also wrote a poem praising Noriega in reverential, almost worshipful terms — praising his hair as "Glistening with the Oil of Anointing," his brow as "Lined by unrelenting concern for the sheep," his eyes as "Focused on the right path, undimmed by sin," and his hands as "Trained, knowledgeable and holy!" The poem concludes: "But alas, my friend, if you cannot see his heart, you have not seen a fountain pumping out the life of saints and you have not heard a rhythm, beat in time with every Word of the Gospel of Christ our Lord." What This Means: Francis spent decades traveling with his father to Tucson — the heart of the Message movement — to sit at the feet of Isaac Noriega. He describes Noriega and his father as "the Word made flesh" to him. He admits he never knew Christ except through these Message leaders. He wrote fawning poetry comparing Noriega to a holy, anointed vessel of God. This is not a man who can claim ignorance. This is not a man who can pretend he doesn't know what Branham taught. This is not a man who can act surprised when critics quote Branham's sermons. Francis is a lifelong insider who was raised on Branham's teachings, who traveled repeatedly to the movement's epicenter, who groveled at the feet of its leadership, and who credits these men with his entire understanding of Christ and Scripture. So when we ask Francis about Branham's teachings on women, race, segregation, and the KKK — we are not asking a casual observer. We are asking a man who has spent his entire life immersed in this movement, who has had every opportunity to know exactly what Branham taught, and who has chosen to defend it anyway. He cannot play dumb. He cannot claim he didn't know. He cannot pretend these teachings are obscure or taken out of context. He knows. He has always known. And now he must answer for it. And Speaking of Isaac Noriega: Is THIS What "Knowing Christ" Looks Like? Francis wrote that he "never knew Christ" except through Isaac Noriega and his father. He described Noriega as "the Word made flesh." He wrote reverential poetry praising Noriega's "hands trained, knowledgeable and holy" and his heart as "a fountain pumping out the life of saints." So let us examine the man through whom Francis claims to know Christ. The Authoritarian Control: Isaac Noriega's Golden Dawn Tabernacle in Tucson, Arizona has been described by twenty former members as a cult. The church operates under an authoritarian system in which the pastor controls virtually every aspect of members' lives — from whom they can marry, to how they dress, to what they are permitted to own, to how they name their children. Former members describe a culture of total pastoral domination enforced through public humiliation, shunning, and excommunication. Perhaps the most striking example: widows and daughters of deceased fathers are reportedly required to call Pastor Noriega for permission to visit their own family members or even go to the grocery store. Elderly women are limited to minutes in a store; if they take too long, the pastor calls to berate them. This is not hearsay — an audio recording exists of a single woman whose father had passed away asking Isaac Noriega for permission to visit her own sister. This is the level of control exercised over adult women in this church. Brother Allistair, you acknowledged in Part 1 that legalism and cultish control exist in some Message churches. You said you are "the hardest on Message people" about this. So we ask directly: does a church where widows must telephone their pastor for permission to buy groceries meet your own definition of legalism and cultish control? If so, why have you never publicly said so about the man you described as "the Word made flesh"? The Child Sex Abuse Cover-Up (as reported by Arizona Daily Star): According to news reports from the Arizona Daily Star/Lee Enterprises investigation, Isaac Noriega (age 82) was criminally indicted in June 2025 on two counts of failure to report child abuse — one felony, one misdemeanor. He was reportedly arrested and booked into Pima County Jail. The pattern described in news reports: • When an 11-year-old boy named Philip was sexually abused by congregant Jose Mora in 2012, the father called Pastor Noriega. Noriega came to the home and gave this advice: "We don't go to the law." He told the father to "not speak about it, and if it comes up, to deny it." • Philip's abuse was not reported. Jose Mora remained in good standing for over a decade with continued access to children. • At least nine former members identified incidents where Noriega "brushed aside" child sexual abuse allegations going back to the 1980s. • Jose Mora was finally arrested in April 2025 — not because Noriega reported him, but because journalists exposed the cover-up. Mora, who publicly admitted to sexually abusing children, now faces charges that could carry life in prison. A third victim came forward saying Mora molested him "hundreds of times" during church services. • Two women alleged that Stephen Noriega — the pastor's own son — engaged in inappropriate contact with them when they were children. Isaac Noriega was informed. He ignored it. • When police arrived to conduct a welfare check on a girl allegedly being abused, Noriega screamed at the officer that they were "not allowed at the church without a search warrant." • After his indictment, Noriega claimed dementia makes him incompetent to stand trial — while continuing to preach multiple times weekly. Former member Andrew Loza summarized the church culture: "We don't call the police in Golden Dawn. You don't ever get outsiders involved. You go to Pastor Isaac." The Question for Francis: Francis, you wrote that you "never knew Christ" except through Isaac Noriega. You described him as "the Word made flesh." • Do you condone telling a father whose child was molested, "We don't go to the law"? • Do you condone instructing him to "deny it" if asked? • Do you condone a pastor who knew of multiple abuse allegations and decided "we're not going to concern ourselves with him"? • Do you condone protecting predators for decades while children were molested in church pews? You cannot write poems praising a man as "the Word made flesh" and then say nothing when that man is criminally indicted for covering up child sex abuse. If you condone these things, say so publicly. If you do not condone them, explain how you "knew Christ" through a man who told fathers not to report their children's molestation. Silence is complicity. The world is watching. On Women Being Lower Than Animals: Branham taught: "There is nothing designed, in all creation, that can stoop as low as a woman can... 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." (Marriage and Divorce, 65-0221M) Questions for Francis: • Do you believe women are lower than dogs, hogs, and birds? • Do you teach the women in your congregation that female pigs are more moral than they are? • Is this the "deep revelation" that critics "don't get"? • Would you stand before the women of your church and read this quote aloud? If not, why do you defend the man who said it? On Women as "Human Garbage Cans" and "Dog Meat": Branham taught: "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." (Marriage and Divorce, 65-0221M) Branham also taught: "So when you see a woman wearing paint, you just say, 'Good morning, Miss Dog Meat.' That's exactly what it is. That's awful, isn't it? But that's what God thinks about it. She's just made common dog meat for wild dogs." (Jezebel Religion, 61-0319) Questions for Francis: • Do you instruct the men in your congregation to greet women wearing makeup as "Miss Dog Meat"? • Do you believe God views women with lipstick as "dog meat for wild dogs"? • Is calling a woman a "human garbage can" the language of the Holy Spirit? • What do the women in your church think when they hear this? Have you asked them? On Women Being "Designed by Satan": Branham taught: "You may question me about Satan being her designer, but that's the Truth. Satan designed her. He still does it... She is designed, alone, for filth and unclean living." (Marriage and Divorce, 65-0221M) Branham taught that women are not part of God's original creation: "Notice, the reason that animals couldn't do it, a female animal, they were in the original creation. But the woman is a by-product... here is a creature that came into existence by a perversion." Questions for Francis: • Do you believe Satan — not God — designed women? • Do you teach that women are not part of God's original creation? • Does Genesis 1:27 — "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" — not directly contradict this teaching? • Is the "by-product" doctrine what you mean when you say the Message contains "mysteries" critics don't understand? On Women Causing Every Sin: Branham taught: "Every sin that ever was on the earth was caused by a woman." (Marriage and Divorce, 65-0221M) Branham taught: "Every criminal case was ever done in this United States, a woman was behind it. That's exactly right." Questions for Francis: • Do you believe every sin ever committed was caused by a woman? • Was the Holocaust caused by a woman? The Rwandan genocide? The Gulag? The slave trade? • Was Judas's betrayal caused by a woman? Cain's murder of Abel? • Do you teach this doctrine to the young men in your church? What does it do to how they view their mothers, sisters, and future wives? On Women and Voting, Driving, and Working: Branham taught: "They oughtn't never let a woman behind a wheel." (The Serpent's Seed, 58-0928E) Branham taught that women's suffrage was "an evil thing" and that the nation would be "better off if it practiced polygamy" than allowing women to vote. Branham taught: "God made women for one place, the kitchen." Questions for Francis: • Do you believe women should not be allowed to drive? • Do you believe women should not be allowed to vote? • Do you believe polygamy is preferable to women's suffrage? • Are the women in your congregation forbidden from driving to church? If not, why do you defend a prophet whose "Thus Saith the Lord" you selectively ignore? On the Practical Fruit of These Teachings: Recent investigative journalism has documented widespread reports from women in Message churches of: • Being taught their bodies belong to their husbands • Being required to submit to sex even when they do not consent • Being blamed for men's sins because of their appearance • Being forbidden from education, careers, and independence • Suffering domestic abuse that was justified by Branham's teachings on female submission Questions for Francis: • Are you aware of these reports? • Do you believe these outcomes are unrelated to Branham's teachings about women? • When Branham taught that women are lower than animals, designed by Satan, and responsible for every sin — did he bear no responsibility for how men would treat women after hearing this? • If a young woman in your congregation is being abused by a husband who quotes Branham to justify it, what do you tell her? The Core Question: Francis, you have spent six hours defending William Branham against critics. You have told young people that leaving the Message leads to a "dark place." You have mocked those who examine the evidence as mentally unstable. But you have not defended these teachings. You have not explained how calling women "dog meat" is consistent with "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church" (Ephesians 5:25). You have not explained how saying women are "designed by Satan" is consistent with "So God created man in his own image... male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:27). You have not explained how teaching that every sin was caused by a woman is consistent with "By one man sin entered into the world" (Romans 5:12). You have not explained how calling women lower than dogs and pigs honors "the weaker vessel" that husbands are commanded to give honor to (1 Peter 3:7). So here is the question you must answer: Do you believe these teachings are from God? Do you teach them to your congregation? Do you read these quotes from the pulpit? Do the women in your church know what Branham said about them? If you believe these teachings are true, say so publicly. Stand before your congregation and declare that women are lower than pigs, designed by Satan, and responsible for every sin. Let the women hear it. Let the young girls hear it. Let the mothers and daughters hear what the "prophet" thought of them. And if you do not believe these teachings are true — if you are embarrassed by them, if you would never read them aloud, if you quietly set them aside while defending Branham's "vindication" — then you must answer a different question: How can Branham be a vindicated prophet of God if his teachings about half the human race are so monstrous that even his own defenders will not repeat them? You cannot have it both ways. Either Branham spoke for God — in which case God thinks women are dog meat — or Branham did not speak for God — in which case the entire foundation of the Message collapses. Which is it, Francis? We await your answer. MORE QUESTIONS FOR FRANCIS: RACE, THE KKK, AND SEGREGATION Francis has not only avoided Branham's teachings on women — he has also avoided Branham's teachings on race. So let us continue with more questions that Francis must answer. On Branham's Ku Klux Klan Connections: Branham's first pastor was Roy E. Davis — a convicted criminal, co-author of the KKK constitution and bylaws, and eventually National Imperial Wizard (leader) of the Original Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Davis baptized Branham, ordained him, and was his mentor during his formative years in ministry. Branham spoke fondly of the KKK throughout his life: "The Ku Klux Klan paid the hospital bill for me, Masons. I can never forget them. See? No matter what they do, or what, I still... there is something, and that stays with me, see, what they did for me." (Souls That Are in Prison Now, 1963) Questions for Francis: • Are you aware that Branham's first pastor became the National Imperial Wizard of the KKK? • Are you aware that the KKK paid Branham's hospital bills and that Branham praised them publicly as late as 1963? • Do you believe God chose a KKK leader to baptize, ordain, and mentor His end-time prophet? • Does this connection concern you at all? If not, why not? On Segregation as Christian Doctrine: In February 1965 — just months before the Voting Rights Act was signed — Branham declared: "I am a segregationalist. Because, I don't care how much they argue, you cannot be a Christian and be an integrationist. That's exactly right. God even separates His nations. He separates His people... He is a segregationalist." Questions for Francis: • Do you believe that Christians cannot support racial integration? • Do you teach your congregation that "God is a segregationalist"? • Was the Civil Rights Movement — led by Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr. — anti-Christian? • Are the integrated churches of South Africa that you praise in your videos actually operating against God's will? On Martin Luther King Jr.: Branham repeatedly attacked Martin Luther King Jr., saying: "I think Martin Luther King's going to lead his people to a biggest slaughter, and massacre, that they've ever been into." He also said: "Martin Luther King is the greatest indebtment the colored people's ever had. Right. That man's going to lead a thousands of them to a slaughter, inspired by communism." And: "That minister... Martin Luther King down there with them precious people, leading right into a death trap... Just for an—a little uprising of the school proposition... What difference." Questions for Francis: • Did millions of Black Americans die in a "slaughter" because of the Civil Rights Movement? • Was desegregating schools — allowing Black children to attend the same schools as white children — really just a "little uprising" not worth pursuing? • Was Martin Luther King Jr. "inspired by communism"? • Was the "prophet" wrong about this, or was America's greatest civil rights leader actually leading people into a "death trap"? On Interracial Marriage as "Hybreeding": Branham taught: "Hybreeding, hybreeding, oh, how terrible, hybreeding... What white woman would want her baby to be a mulatto by a colored man? God made us what we are." He also taught: "What good would a white woman want to have a baby by a colored man making him a mulatto child? It's not sensible." And: "He makes white man, black man, red man. We should never cross that up. It becomes a hybrid. And anything hybrid cannot re-breed itself. You are ruining the race of people." And: "Let the brown race marry the brown race, the white race marry the white race, the dark race, the yellow race and whatevermore, stay the way God made them." Questions for Francis: • Do you teach that interracial marriage is "terrible hybreeding"? • Do you tell mixed-race children in your congregation that they are "hybrids" who are "ruining the race"? • Would you refuse to perform a wedding between a Black man and a white woman, as some Message pastors do? • Moses married a Cushite (Ethiopian) woman, and when Miriam criticized him for it, God struck her with leprosy (Numbers 12:1-10). How do you reconcile Branham's teaching with this Scripture? On Black People Being "Satisfied" With Segregation: Branham taught: "There is some things about a colored man that a white man don't even possess them traits. A white man is always stewing and worrying; a colored man is satisfied in the state he is in, so they don't need those things." He also taught: "The colored people has fine schools, sometimes much better than the other schools." Questions for Francis: • Do you believe Black Americans were "satisfied" under segregation? • Do you believe Black Americans "didn't need" civil rights because they don't "stew and worry" like white people? • Is this the kind of "deep revelation" that critics "just don't understand"? On the Serpent Seed Doctrine and Its Racist Origins: Branham's "Serpent Seed" doctrine — that Eve had sexual intercourse with the serpent and produced Cain — has well-documented origins in white supremacist theology. The doctrine was popularized by the Christian Identity movement and the KKK, who used it to claim that non-white races were descended from Satan through Cain. Wikipedia notes: "Michael Barkun wrote that Branham was the most significant proponent of the racial teaching outside of the Christian Identity movement and directly influenced their theology." Branham said: "The [serpent's] seed come over in the ark, just like it did in the beginning, through the woman, their wives. They carried the seed of Satan, through the ark, just as Eve packed the seed of Satan, to give birth to Cain, through the woman... And out of there, then, come Ham... He had a curse put on him." (The Serpent's Seed, 1958) Questions for Francis: • Are you aware that the Serpent Seed doctrine was developed and promoted by the Ku Klux Klan and Christian Identity movement? • Are you aware that Branham learned this doctrine from men with documented KKK connections? • Do you believe the "curse of Ham" justifies racial hierarchy? • Do you teach that some races carry "the seed of Satan"? On Denominations as "The Mark of the Beast": Branham taught that membership in any Christian denomination was "the mark of the beast": "Anyone belonging to any denomination had taken 'the mark of the beast.'" He also called denominations "synagogues of Satan." Questions for Francis: • Do you believe that Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Pentecostals have all taken "the mark of the beast"? • Do you believe these churches are "synagogues of Satan"? • Are the billions of Christians in denominations all damned? • If so, why does the Message have such a tiny following compared to these "beast-marked" churches? On the Trinity as "Catholic Error": Branham taught: "...not one place in the Bible is trinity ever mentioned... It's Catholic error and you Protestants bow to it." Questions for Francis: • Do you reject the doctrine of the Trinity as "Catholic error"? • Do you believe the historic Christian creeds — the Nicene Creed, the Apostles' Creed — are all wrong? • Do you believe that virtually all Christians throughout history have been deceived on the fundamental nature of God? The Fruits of These Teachings: Recent investigative journalism has documented that: • A Tennessee Message pastor was called "the most racist pastor in America" in 2014 for quoting Branham's teachings on interracial marriage • Message churches across the United States continue to oppose interracial marriage based on Branham's teachings • A Message leader in Africa (Kacou Philippe) was arrested and imprisoned for teaching that Africans should be "submissive towards whites" and that decolonization was a sin • Former members report being taught that "mulattos" are "like serpent seed" and "hybrids" Questions for Francis: • Are these outcomes unrelated to Branham's teachings? • When Branham called interracial marriage "terrible hybreeding," did he bear no responsibility for pastors who now refuse to perform interracial weddings? • When Branham praised the KKK and attacked Martin Luther King, did he bear no responsibility for the racial attitudes in Message churches today? The Biblical Test: The Bible is clear: "God, by one blood, has made all nations" (Acts 17:26). The Bible commands: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). The Bible records that Moses married an Ethiopian woman, and God defended that marriage by striking Miriam with leprosy when she criticized it (Numbers 12:1-10). The Bible shows Philip baptizing an Ethiopian eunuch with no mention of racial barriers (Acts 8:26-39). The early church included "prophets and teachers: Barnabas, and Simeon that was called Niger [Black], and Lucius of Cyrene" in leadership (Acts 13:1). The Core Question on Race — And Francis's Personal History: Francis, in your videos you mentioned that you lived through apartheid in South Africa. You experienced firsthand what institutionalized racial segregation does to a nation. You saw the Pass Laws. You saw the Group Areas Act. You saw the "Whites Only" signs. You saw families torn apart, communities destroyed, and human dignity trampled — all in the name of keeping the races "separate." Apartheid was not just a political system. It was a theological system. The Dutch Reformed Church provided biblical justification for apartheid, arguing that God intended the races to be separate. They cited the "curse of Ham." They argued that racial mixing was against God's created order. They claimed that segregation was God's will. And William Branham taught the exact same thing. When Branham declared "I am a segregationalist... you cannot be a Christian and be an integrationist... God is a segregationalist" — he was preaching the theological foundation of apartheid. When Branham taught that interracial marriage was "terrible hybreeding" that would "ruin the race" — he was preaching the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act that devastated South African families. When Branham taught that Black people were "satisfied in the state" they were in and "didn't need" civil rights — he was preaching the lie that apartheid's architects told themselves to sleep at night. When Branham attacked Martin Luther King as a communist leading people to "slaughter" — he was echoing the apartheid government's propaganda against anti-apartheid activists. Francis, you lived through this. You saw what this theology produces. So here is the question you must answer: How can you — a man who witnessed the horrors of apartheid — defend a prophet who taught that segregation is God's will? How can you stand in South Africa and tell people to follow a man who would have supported the system that oppressed your nation for decades? Do the Black members of your congregation know that Branham taught "you cannot be a Christian and be an integrationist"? Do they know he called interracial marriage "terrible hybreeding"? Do they know he attacked the Civil Rights Movement as communist-inspired? Do the "Coloured" members of your congregation — those classified under apartheid's racial hierarchy as mixed-race — know that Branham called their very existence a "hybrid" that was "ruining the race"? When you praise the vibrant, multiracial worship services in your South African churches, do you tell those congregations that the prophet they follow taught that such integration was anti-Christian? The theology Branham preached is the theology of apartheid. The only difference is that Branham preached it in Indiana while the Dutch Reformed Church preached it in Pretoria. The content was identical: God wants the races separate. Integration is sinful. Interracial marriage is an abomination. Black people should be content with their station. You cannot have it both ways, Francis. You cannot celebrate the end of apartheid while defending a prophet who taught its theology. You cannot pastor multiracial churches while following a man who said such churches were operating against God's will. You cannot embrace the "rainbow nation" while preaching the message of a segregationist. So which is it? Was apartheid wrong? Then so was Branham's teaching on race. Was Branham right about segregation? Then apartheid was justified, and Nelson Mandela was fighting against God's will. You lived through it, Francis. You saw what this theology does to real people in the real world. You saw the suffering it caused. You saw the families it destroyed. You saw the dignity it stripped away. And now you defend the man who preached it. How can you defend a prophet who: • Was mentored by a KKK leader • Praised the KKK publicly • Declared that Christians must be segregationists • Attacked Martin Luther King as a communist leading people to slaughter • Called interracial marriage "terrible hybreeding" • Taught that Black people were "satisfied" under segregation • Promoted a doctrine (Serpent Seed) developed by white supremacists Do you read these quotes to your South African congregation? Do the Black members of your church know what Branham said about them? Do the mixed-race families know they are "hybrids" who are "ruining the race"? The Inescapable Dilemma: Either Branham spoke for God — in which case God is a segregationist who opposes interracial marriage, praised the KKK, and considered Martin Luther King a communist deceiver — or Branham did not speak for God. Which is it, Francis? You cannot defend Branham's "vindication" while hiding his teachings. You cannot praise his prophecies while burying his racism. You cannot call him a prophet while pretending he didn't say what he said. The recordings exist. The transcripts are public. The quotes are documented. So stand before your congregation and read them aloud. Tell them that God is a segregationist. Tell them that interracial marriage is "terrible hybreeding." Tell them that Martin Luther King was inspired by communism. Tell them that the KKK paid the prophet's hospital bills and he never forgot their kindness. And if you cannot do that — if you are ashamed of these teachings, if you would never repeat them publicly — then you must explain how a vindicated prophet of God could teach things so monstrous that even his own defenders are ashamed to quote them. We await your answer. MORE QUESTIONS FOR FRANCIS: FALSE PROPHECIES, FACTUAL ERRORS, AND OCCULT TEACHINGS Francis has defended Branham as a "vindicated prophet" whose supernatural gifts prove he spoke for God. But what happens when we examine Branham's actual prophecies and teachings? Let us continue with more questions Francis must answer. On the Real-World Impact of the 1977 Prediction: Branham himself acknowledged the distinction between a prediction and a prophecy, and we will respect that distinction here. In his book An Exposition of the Seven Church Ages, he wrote: "The Laodicean Age began around the turn of the Twentieth Century, perhaps 1906. How long will it last? As a servant of God who has had multitudes of visions, of which NONE has ever failed, let me predict (I did not say prophesy, but predict) that this age will end around 1977." He also said: "I sincerely believe and maintain as a private student of the Word, along with Divine inspiration that 1977 ought to terminate the world systems and usher in the millennium." Whether one classifies this as a prophecy or a prediction, the real-world consequences were devastating. Prior to 1977, Message believers worldwide were fixated on this date. Tracts were printed. Preparations were made. Families sold their homes, their cars, and their possessions. Parents did not plan for their children's futures. People rearranged their entire lives around the expectation that the world would end. Doomsday movements formed around this prediction, including groups led by Paulaseer Lawrie in India who promoted rapture expectations tied to this date. When 1977 came and went, many believers were left financially ruined and spiritually shattered. Many left the Message entirely. The prophecy-versus-prediction distinction does not undo the damage. These were real families who made irreversible decisions based on the words of a man who claimed divine inspiration and a perfect track record of visions. The separate, documented failures of actual "Thus Saith the Lord" prophecies — the brown bear, Donny Morton, the India crusade — only compound the question of whether Branham's followers were well-served by the trust they placed in him. Questions for Francis: • Are you aware of the financial and personal devastation that Message believers experienced as a result of preparing for 1977? • Do you believe it is responsible for a minister claiming divine inspiration to give a specific date for the end of the world, knowing that sincere believers will act on it? • What pastoral accountability exists for the families who lost everything based on this prediction? • Are you aware that Jim Jones attended Branham's meetings and was influenced by his ministry before founding the Peoples Temple? • After 1977 passed, many left the Message. Were they wrong to reconsider their trust in a man whose "divinely inspired" prediction did not come to pass? On "Thus Saith the Lord" Prophecies That Failed: Branham used the phrase "Thus Saith the Lord" approximately 1,600 times during his ministry. Multiple documented cases show these prophecies failed: • Donny Morton: Branham declared "Thus Saith the Lord" that Donny Morton would be healed. Donny Morton died. • Agnes Shippy: Branham declared "Thus Saith the Lord" regarding Agnes Shippy's healing. The prophecy failed. • The Brown Bear: Branham declared "Thus Saith the Lord" that he would shoot a large brown bear. He did not. • South Africa Meetings: Branham had a vision of massive meetings in South Africa that never materialized as described. • Los Angeles: Branham prophesied that Los Angeles would sink into the ocean while his son Billy Paul was still an old man. Billy Paul is now elderly. Los Angeles remains above water. Questions for Francis: • How many times can a prophet say "Thus Saith the Lord" and be wrong before he fails the biblical test of a prophet? • If ONE failed prophecy disqualifies a prophet under Deuteronomy 18:22, what do MULTIPLE failed prophecies mean? • Why did Branham's own contemporaries — including Kenneth Hagin — prophesy that God was going to remove Branham "because he was getting into error"? (This prophecy was given BEFORE Branham's death.) • Gordon Lindsay, who worked closely with Branham in the healing revival, reportedly grew concerned about the direction of Branham's ministry in his later years. Why do you think people who knew Branham personally became concerned? On the Zodiac and Pyramids as "Scripture": Branham taught that God wrote THREE Bibles: the Zodiac, the Egyptian Pyramids, and the written Scripture we know. He repeatedly taught this doctrine: "God wrote three Bibles: one, the Zodiac, one in the pyramids, one on paper." "God wrote three Bibles. One of them was the Zodiac in the skies. That's the first Bible. Man was to look up to realize that God is from above." "Follow the Zodiac; did you ever study it? It even gives every age, even the cancer age. It gives the beginning, the birth—the birth of Christ." "The second Bible was written, was written by Enoch, and put in the pyramid." Questions for Francis: • Do you believe the Zodiac is equal to Scripture? • Do you believe the Egyptian Pyramids are a "Bible" written by God? • Do you study the Zodiac for spiritual revelation? • The Bible explicitly forbids looking to the stars for guidance: "Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven" (Jeremiah 10:2). How do you reconcile Branham's teaching with this verse? • The Bible says: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16). Does this include the Zodiac and Pyramids? • Astrology is condemned throughout Scripture. Why did Branham "Christianize" it? On Factual Errors About the Pyramids: Branham made numerous factually incorrect claims about the Egyptian Pyramids: • He claimed: "Geographically, it's in the center of the earth. There's never a shadow around it, no matter where the sun is." — This is false. The Great Pyramid casts shadows like any other structure. • He claimed Enoch built the pyramids. — There is no historical or archaeological evidence for this. • He claimed the Great Pyramid never had a capstone. — Archaeological evidence suggests it did have a capstone that was later removed or fell. • He claimed the Egyptians "were much better scientists than we have today" and had "atomic power." — This is historically and scientifically absurd. Questions for Francis: • Do you believe the Egyptians had atomic power before the flood? • Do you believe Enoch built the Great Pyramid? • Do you believe the Great Pyramid never casts a shadow? • When Branham made basic factual errors that any encyclopedia could correct, was he speaking by divine revelation? • Branham himself admitted: "I make them mistakes all the time. I'm sure a dummy." Should a prophet sent by God make constant factual errors? On the Serpent Seed Doctrine: Branham taught that Eve had sexual intercourse with the serpent (who was an upright, intelligent creature at the time), and that Cain was the offspring of this union. This is the "Serpent Seed" doctrine. But the Bible says: "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD" (Genesis 4:1). Eve explicitly credits the LORD — not the serpent — with Cain's conception. The Bible says Adam "knew" (had sexual relations with) Eve, and the result was Cain. Questions for Francis: • Does Genesis 4:1 say Adam fathered Cain, or does it say the serpent fathered Cain? • Why did Eve say she "gotten a man from the LORD" if Cain was actually the offspring of Satan? • The Bible says: "By one man sin entered into the world" (Romans 5:12). If sin entered through the serpent's intercourse with Eve, why does Paul say sin entered through ONE MAN (Adam)? • Acts 17:26 says God "hath made of one blood all nations of men." If some humans are descended from the serpent, how can all nations be of "one blood"? • Are you aware that the Serpent Seed doctrine was developed and promoted by the Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity movement, and other white supremacist groups? Are you aware that scholars have documented Branham learned this doctrine from men with KKK connections? On Additional Racial Statements: Beyond what we have already documented, Branham made statements that critics have catalogued from his recorded sermons regarding race and ethnicity. These can be verified in the sermon transcripts: Questions for Francis: • Are you aware of Branham's documented statements suggesting African people don't need education? • Are you aware of Branham's statements about Black people being "happy" in their condition during segregation? • How do you reconcile these statements with the gospel message of equality in Christ (Galatians 3:28)? On Additional Concerning Statements: Beyond the Marriage and Divorce sermon, Branham made other statements that critics have documented regarding corporal punishment and gender roles. These statements can be verified in the sermon transcripts available through Voice of God Recordings: "If a wife cuts her hair, her husband can divorce her." "A man can remarry after divorce but a woman can't." Questions for Francis: • Do you believe a man can divorce his wife for cutting her hair? • Do you believe men can remarry after divorce but women cannot? Where is this double standard taught in Scripture? • Branham's teachings on corporal punishment have been linked to documented abuse cases in Message communities, including allegations regarding Leo Mercer and Gene Goad (both Branham associates). Are you aware of these documented cases? On Branham's Connections to Dangerous Movements: Branham's teachings have been linked to multiple dangerous groups: • Jim Jones attended William Branham's meetings and was influenced by Branham's healing ministry before founding the Peoples Temple. Jones later said he and Branham "did not see eye to eye," but the connection is historically documented. The influence was on Jones's early ministry style and claims to prophetic/healing gifts, not necessarily on the specific timing of Jonestown. • Colonia Dignidad in Chile (where torture, child abuse, and murder occurred for decades under Paul Schäfer) had documented connections to Branham's Message movement. Some members followed Branham's teachings, and the compound's ideology aligned with Branham's apocalyptic warnings about fleeing to South America before America's destruction. • Kacou Philippe, a Message leader in Africa, was arrested and imprisoned for teaching that Africans should be "submissive towards whites" and that "decolonization of Africa was a sin" — teachings derived from Branham's racial doctrines. • Multiple doomsday movements formed around Branham's 1977 prediction, including groups led by Paulaseer Lawrie in India who promoted rapture expectations tied to this date. • Cult experts who study high-control religious groups have noted that the Message movement exhibits characteristics common to such groups, including information control about the founder's problematic history and lack of transparency with new members about controversial doctrines. Questions for Francis: • Are you aware that Jim Jones was influenced by Branham's teachings? • Are you aware that Colonia Dignidad — responsible for decades of torture and abuse — had documented connections to Branham's Message? • Are you concerned that Branham's teachings have repeatedly been connected to dangerous, abusive groups? • When a teacher's doctrines consistently produce such fruit, does Matthew 7:16 ("Ye shall know them by their fruits") apply? • Why does the Message movement not routinely disclose Branham's controversial teachings on race and women to new members before they commit? On Branham's Claim to Be Elijah: Branham claimed to be the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5-6 — the Elijah who would come before the great and dreadful day of the Lord. He said: "The Elijah of this day is the Lord Jesus Christ. He is to come according to Luke 17:30. The Son of Man is to reveal Himself among His people. Not a man, God. But it'll come through a prophet." Some of his followers believed — and Branham did not clearly deny — that he was claiming divinity. After his death, followers held vigils at his grave expecting him to resurrect. Questions for Francis: • Did Branham resurrect from the dead as his followers expected? • Is Branham buried with a pyramid-shaped tombstone because he believed the pyramids were Scripture? • If Branham was Elijah preparing the way for Christ's return, why did his "Thus Saith the Lord" prophecies — such as the brown bear prophecy, the healing of Donny Morton, and the India crusade — fail to come to pass? • Kenneth Hagin prophesied that God was going to remove Branham because "he thinks he is Elijah" and was "getting into error." Do you believe Hagin — a respected Pentecostal leader — was wrong about this? On the "Seventh Angel" Claim: Branham claimed to be the "seventh angel" of Revelation 10:7: "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished." He taught that he was this angel, and that through his ministry, all the mysteries of God were being revealed. Questions for Francis: • If Branham finished revealing all the mysteries of God, why do Message believers still disagree about what he taught? • If Branham was the seventh angel, why did multiple "Thus Saith the Lord" prophecies — spoken directly in the name of the Lord — fail to come to pass? • If Branham's ministry finished the mystery of God, why is the Message movement shrinking rather than conquering the earth? • Why did the Assemblies of God officially reject the Latter Rain/Manifest Sons of God teachings — which Branham promoted — as "heresy" in 1949? On Branham's Admitted Errors: Branham himself admitted he made frequent factual errors: "I make them mistakes all the time. I'm sure a dummy, so you forgive me." In his sermon on the Serpent's Seed, he made four factual mistakes on a single page, including saying the Council of Nicaea was held in "Nicaea, France" — when it was actually held in Nicaea, Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). Questions for Francis: • Should a prophet sent by God not know basic historical facts? • Should a prophet admit to being "a dummy" who makes mistakes "all the time"? • If Branham made constant factual errors on verifiable matters (history, geography, science), how can we trust his claims about unverifiable matters (visions, prophecies, divine revelations)? • If a medical doctor said "I make mistakes all the time, I'm a dummy," would you trust him with your health? Then why trust a self-admitted error-prone teacher with your eternal soul? The Biblical Standard: The Bible provides clear tests for prophets: "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deuteronomy 18:22) "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1) "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matthew 7:15-16) The Core Question: Francis, you have defended Branham as a "vindicated prophet" whose supernatural gifts prove divine authority. But the evidence shows: • His 1977 prediction caused devastating financial and personal ruin for believers who acted on it • Multiple "Thus Saith the Lord" prophecies failed • He taught the Zodiac and Pyramids are Scripture equal to the Bible • He made constant factual errors he himself admitted • His Serpent Seed doctrine contradicts Genesis 4:1 • His racial teachings mirror white supremacist ideology • His teachings on women have been linked to documented abuse • His ministry has produced doomsday cults, abusive communities, and mass tragedy • His own contemporaries — men who knew him personally — warned he was "getting into error" So here is the question: By what standard is William Branham a true prophet? Not by Deuteronomy 18:22 — his prophecies failed. Not by Matthew 7:16 — his fruits include abuse, racism, and dangerous cults. Not by 1 John 4:1 — when his teachings are tested, they fail. Not by 1 Thessalonians 5:21 — when his claims are proved, they collapse. The only standard by which Branham passes is the standard of circular reasoning: he is a prophet because his followers say so, and his followers say so because they believe he is a prophet. That is not vindication. That is cult logic.

Navigation

Home Our Podcast The List of Problems Life Story Prophecies & Visions Seven Seals Was William Branham Honest? Doctrines

Church Ages Jesus Languages Videos Print Resources Help! Facebook Contact Us