Vernon

(a.l.a.

.u:

::David
and

_)(oreJh)

Seventh

"And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her
seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."
Revelation 12:17

~he

Vernon

.u:

War/are

0/
t.i.:

::David _)(ore6h)

afjain6t
Branch

and other6

the

::Davidian Seventh

::Day Adventi6t6

Copyright
September 2003, Douglas Francis Mitchell
All Rights Reserved
Original Copyright: 1993
Revised: September 2003
Written by
Douglas Francis Mitchell
Printed in the United States of America

PREFACE
The following is presented to set straight the facts of the matter, and as a warning and an
appeal. No attempt is made herein to supply the behind the scene facts unknown to this author. That
will remain for others who have access to those facts. The basic aim of this testimony is to show that
Vernon Howell* (later known as David Koresh*) and his followers left the authentic Branch Davidian
Seventh Day Adventists Association (aka, "The Branch"), headquartered at New Mt. Carmel Center,
Waco, Texas, in 1983-84 as a new, distinct movement which abandoned most of the fundamental
principles and practices of the true movement. At the time Howell started his distinct movement he
named it the "Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists," <see Appendix 1>. About
four years later Howell dropped that name and unlawfully usurped the name and property of the true
Church. The name "Branch Davidians" came into use by the media during the notorious 1993 events
involving David Koresh and his followers.
*Note: For the sake of accuracy, I will be referring to him (Howell/Koresh)
was going by at the time the events which are being related occurred.

by the name he

It will also be shown herein that Howell's (Koresh's) control of New Mt. Carmel Center was
clearly unlawful. His coming there was neither accidental nor coincidental, but rather was staged, as
were the results of his actions. He was not alone in his warfare against the true Church.
In order to show the depth of the controversy heretofore not fully disclosed, many different
aspects involved will be discussed. Though there have been numerous articles and books written on
the subject, and even a few movies made, most have ignored or distorted the true facts of the matter.
Some have done this due to their unfamiliarity with issues involved, while others have done so with
the specific purpose of using the situation to express their animosity against the true Branch
Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, and particularly the doctrines and practices we espouse and
promulgate, to, as it were, bury us alive. There are even others who used the opportunity to strike
out against Christianity,
in general, the Bible, and even God, and to promote their atheistic
philosophies and politics.
The facts and incidents revealed herein will be seen to be more than mere coincidences. God
allowed Vernon Howell to bring in his heresies in order to separate the wheat from the chaff, as it
were. It will also be seen that those who ended up with Koresh had ample opportunities to see the
error of their ways and avoid the tragedy they eventually experienced. Those who were old enough to
know better were not innocent, as they wished themselves to be portrayed.
It is written, "Woe unto the world because of offenses [scandals]! for it must needs be that
offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!" Matthew 18:7. Such was
Koresh's standing when he closed his probation - in a position of woe. Regarding the fact that he led
;nany little ones to their destruction, as did his followers who gave their minor-aged daughters to be
his wives or concubines, it is also written, "Whoso shall offend [put a stumbling block or impediment
in the way of] one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone
were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." (verse 6).
"Hear ye, 0 mountains, the LORD'S controversy, and ye strong foundations of the earth: for
the LORD hath a controversy with his people, and he will plead with Israel." Micah 6:2.
"They are not all Israel, which are of Israel:" Roman 9:6. Neither are they all Christian who
profess Christ. It is the whole house of Israel (Ezekiel 37:11), those home born, and those grafted in,
who the Creator of heaven and earth has a controversy.
Though the world has witnessed the controversy between Koresh and his followers who
professed to be following God, and those who were supposed to be representing the law of the land in
a country which professes to trust in God, the real controversy which God has is with His people who
are disregarding His laws, and are leaning on the arm of flesh (Jeremiah 17:5), by trusting in man for

their peace and safety, welfare and happiness, and knowledge of His will and word.
While the testimony herein concerns the theft of the identity and property rights of a
seemingly small and relatively disregarded congregation, the real warfare which underlies it involves
God's rights to rule his people and His world his way, and to be represented in truth and righteousness.
So though we have the right to protest against the way we have been abused through the situation
with Koresh, God has an infinitely greater right to raise His objections to the whole matter. "But
there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you,
who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways: by reason of whom the
way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make
merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation
slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2: 1-3.

TESTIMONY
AUTHOR'S HISTORY
I came in contact with the Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA) in the summer of 1977, and
was baptized later that year. A few months later I came in contact with the teachings of the Davidian
Seventh Day Adventists (a.k.a. "Shepherd's Rod," or "Davidians"), a reform movement within the
Church. In the early fall of 1978 I came in contact with The Branch Davidian Seventh Day
Adventists (a.k.a., "The Branch"), the successor reform movement to the Davidians. I joined the
movement shortly before the death of Ben Roden (who was then president of the Church) in the fall
of 1978, and have been an active member ever since then. I moved to Texas in late 1982 at the
request of Lois Roden (Ben's wife), who was the successor president of the Branch Davidian Seventh
Day Adventists. I was a firsthand witness to the malicious scheme to defame and destroy the work of
Ben and Lois Roden, their predecessors, and the work of the Branch movement, itself, by Vernon
Howell (David Koresh), and others.
I first met Vernon Howell in September 1981, at Mrs. Roden's daughter's house in the
Riverside area of Southern California. He had driven her to some meetings she had in the area.
Shortly before this time Vernon had come to New Mt. Carmel Center, in Waco, Texas, and offered
his labors to Mrs. Roden. He seemed like a nice person, but overconfident in his knowledge of the
Scriptures, which appeared to be rather broad. I can't say the same about his respect and appreciation
of them or of God of which they testify and Who inspired them.
Shortly after that time he said that he felt that he had a message for the Branch members, but
it was not received then by those to whom it was presented at New Mt. Carmel Center. Rejected in
his attempts to gain a following at that time, he left our fellowship. He came and went over the next
year, only to return in early 1983, and then again in the fall of 1983 to try again.
Never at any time did he actually accept any of the basic moral teachings and practices of the
Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, as time has well proven. He was disfellowshipped from the
Seventh Day Adventist Church for moral reasons shortly before he came to The Branch movement,
and never amended his pernicious ways. Each time he returned to Mt. Carmel Center, he would relate
to us how he had just gotten in trouble (usually with a girl friend), and would draw sympathy from
people.
He didn't put in print the substance of his special message (sic), though he did publish a few
short items. Most of his teaching was oral. He emphasized the difference between the oral manner of
his message, and the printed manner of all the former leaders. This, in and of itself, made it easy for
him to set forth an illusion before his listeners, for they weren't able to readily review the
foundations of his teachings in a setting isolated from his direct influence, and where they could
prayerfully commune with God regarding what he was teaching. Some of his studies were tape
recorded. But neither did any of those contain anything with a sound foundation. He would pull things
from here and there, and then would continually say "see, see." It was all smoke and mirrors. He
would attempt to intimidate people into seeing things that weren't there by belittling them because of
their alleged spiritual blindness, and by noting the supposed spiritual insight of those who had
swallowed up his hook, line, and sinker.
To understand why he came to The Branch at that time, and how he was able to take
unlawful control of the Church's property and identity it is necessary to understand what was
transpiring in the movement during that time. An understanding of how the Church is structured and
functions is also necessary. And, as many who disagree with our doctrines and practices have
misrepresented such and have labeled us as a cult (in the negative sense of the word), it is incumbent
upon us to defend such slanderous misrepresentations by

A BASIC STATEMENT OF OUR BELIEFS

5

In general, we are what may be called Protestant Fundamentalists. This simply means that we
stand in protest to many of the peculiar claims of the so-called Catholic churches (Roman,
Orthodox/Greek, Anglican, etc.), and that we embrace the fundamental principles of the Gospel as
revealed in the Bible. I say so-called Catholic churches because the term catholic (meaning universal)
was applied to the general Christian Church long before the peculiar claims of the now-named
Catholic fellowships came to dominate by force of arms those who disagreed with those claims. The
term catholic was originally used only in an adjectival sense, and not as a proper noun. When using
the term "Catholic Church" herein the meaning is generally referring to the Roman Catholic Church,
but is not excluding the other "Catholic" fellowships.
The same is true in regards to the word Christianity. That is, the doctrines, rites, and practices
of what is today known as Christianity are so far removed from those of the early Church that that
name no longer identifies that which it did when it first came into usage. More on this later.
We also stand in succession to those who are known as the Protestant Reformers - Luther,
Knox, Wesley, Campbell, etc .. That is, we acknowledge that there has not only been a falling away
from the purity of the Gospel religion of the Bible in the centuries following the times of Christ and
the Apostles, but there has also been an ongoing prophetically definable work of restoration to the
purity of doctrine and practice of the religion of the Bible by means of those aforementioned
reformers and those who have followed thereafter.
We may also be identified as Judeo-Christians.
Meaning that we accept the Old and New
Testaments and the divinely inspired traditional principles and practices revealed therein as guiding in
our beliefs and practices. This also means that we reject the traditional principles and practices which
were the fundamentals of the Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, Roman, and uninspired Jewish
cultures which have found their way into what is commonly known as the Christian Church, and
which to one degree or another still exist in the various congregations of Protestants, Catholics, and
those fellowships which technically do not fall into either category (such as Universalists, Mormons,
Jehovah Witnesses, Messianic Jews, etc.).
One of those heathen/pagan
fundamentals
is hero/ancestor
worship which is expressed
towards the living as well as the dead. This consists not only of the legends and lore surrounding the
exalted ones, but also in the erection of monuments, shrines, temples, gardens, and other places and
things whereby to draw attention to men and their thinking rather than to God and His will. This also
includes the giving of flattering titles to men, and assigning them positions unfounded in the word of
God, thus separating brethren.
Another of those fundamentals is the invention of times and manners of celebration which
excite the sensual and selfish natures while stifling the true spiritual experiences, and which weaken
the moral obligations of love. Paramount among those inventions are Christmas-keeping
and the
common Easter celebrations. And not the least bit behind the others is the mysticising of basic
fundamentals of life, and the deep things of God by the things which take place in the customary
Sunday worship hour practices, including the traditional observances of the Lord's Supper in the
various forms practiced by the different denominations.
We are also distinguished by our acceptance of what in the Bible is termed

THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY -

THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS

It is a fundamental teaching of the Seventh Day Adventists (SDA), Davidian Seventh Day
Adventists (DSDA), and the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists (BDSDA), that the gift of
prophecy (the Spirit of prophecy - Revelation 12:17, 19:10) spoken of in the Bible is to exist in
the Church to bring her, and keep her in unity until the second coming of Christ (Isaiah 62: 1,
Ephesians 4: 11-16). The truth of the work of the Spirit of prophecy in the Christian Church, and
what it actually is (and isn't) has been greatly confused and misrepresented, and remains in great

controversy. As true prophecy is a gift of God, it is His responsibility to clear the misunderstanding
and misuse of the gift if He is to continue to employ it as a means of communicating with His
children (Amos 3:7). HowelllKoresh took advantage of the church's need for the gift of prophecy by
counterfeiting it, and thereby brought himself and others to destruction thereby. It is equally true that
he was not the first to abuse this need, nor, sad to say, will he be the last (Matthew 24:11,24).
How this relates to the situation under discussion can be discerned through an understanding
of why the Church is named as it is. First, we have the name

ADVENTISTS
In the early 1800's a movement

began within the Christian Church worldwide based on

events which were then believed to be the fulfillment of certain Bible prophecies which pointed to
the second coming of Christ. Foremost among those prophecies were ones in chapters 7 & 8 of the
book of Daniel, regarding the "2300 days" prophecy and the "cleansing of the sanctuary." Numerous
Bible students in various places throughout the world and in many different fellowships had noticed
that certain recent events fit into the "2300 days" time line set forth in Daniel. At first that period
was thought to extend to 1843, but was later found to extend to October 22, 1844.
[For a more detailed exposition of those events and the determining of the beginning
and ending of the 2300 days prophecy please see the book entitled, The Great
Controversy, by Ellen G. White, and available through the Seventh Day Adventist
Church, and on line at <The Great Controversy>].
One of the most prominent of those events occurred in 1798. At that time, during the
French Revolution, France's General Berthier had gone to Rome, captured the Pope, and took him to
the mountains of France where he later died. This led to the destruction of the local civil power of
the Roman Catholic Church in 1870, when Italy took away the Church's sovereign land. which it did
not regain until 1929 when Mussolini gave that organization the area less than one square mile that it
now has and operates as the independent City/State known as The Vatican. This act of restoration
was seen by many Christians and others of that time (1929) as one of the signs of the fulfillment of
another prophecy - that of the healing of the wounded head on the leopard-like beast (Revelation
13:3) which was inflicted by the Protestant Reformation, and which was healed by the backslidings of
the Protestants.
Those Bible students in the early 1800s also noticed that the period from the time the
Roman Catholic Church gained its civil dominance (538 A.D.) until 1798 (when the pope was taken
captive - Revelation 13: 10) was exactly 1260 years. Applying the Biblical rule of interpretation that
a day in prophecy can be symbolical of a year (Ezekiel 4:6), this corresponded exactly to the first
part of Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 12:7 - "time" [360], "times" [720], "dividing of time" [180]).
They further saw that the prophecy also pointed out that at the end of a 1290 and a 1335 year
period (Daniel J 2: 11, 12) (commencing from a different point in time - that of the "taking away of
the daily" - which occurred in 508 A.D.) another event was to transpire. This prophecy also was
seen to point to 1843, and was to run parallel with the 2300 days prophecy of Daniel 8:14, and was
actually a part of the longer 2300 days prophecy
The prophecy declared that at the end of said period "the sanctuary" was to be cleansed. Here
is where a problem arose. The Christian Church at that time didn't have a clear and accurate
understanding of what was meant by the phrase "the sanctuary shall be cleansed." The majority of
those leading in the movement presumed that the "sanctuary" meant the earth, itself, as this opinion
had been widely held by Churchmen for centuries. Even though they didn't have any sound Biblical
reasoning for that conclusion, nor any specific revelation from God to that effect, this idea became
prominent in the movement. For centuries the Roman Catholic Church had been teaching that the

earth (and particularly Rome) was the center of the universe, and that general notion carried on into
the Protestant churches. Thus, the phrase "the cleansing of the sanctuary" was generally understood
to mean that Jesus would return to the earth to "cleanse" it from sin and sinners. Thus the name
"Adventists" was placed upon those who were expecting the advent (coming) of Christ.
At this time in history it was generally believed among the churches that God was no longer
communicating with mankind by means of direct inspiration - i.e., prophecy. For example, some of
the devout men who were prominent in the founding of the United States were what is known as
Deists. That is, though they believed in God, they only saw God as the original Creator and that He
was no longer directly active in the affairs of the world. Many of the popular churches of the time
taught that the gifts of the Spirit, such as the gift of prophecy, were only for the Old testament and
the early Church times, and that they ceased forever shortly after the time of the Apostles.
During the 1800s, the Christian world was still coming out of what has been called The Dark
Ages. It was only a few hundred years prior to that time that the Bibles were chained up in
monasteries with only a very few allowed access to them. The people were led to look to the leaders
of the churches to know God's will. Anyone who would state that they had a revelation from God
which was contrary to the opinions of the church leaders was in jeopardy of facing a charge of heresy
and death.
The Protestants, who since the early 1500s had severed their connections with the Roman
Catholic Church, were by the 1800s divided into four major groups - Lutherans, Presbyterians,
Methodists, and Baptists. Though there were other prominent non-Catholic groups around, their
basic doctrines and practices stemmed from one of those four major groups of thinking. Then, as
today, those groups were generally relying on their leaders and scholars to interpret for them the
meaning of the prophecies (how they apply), and what are the true Bible doctrines. They presumed
that their prominent leaders were actually inspired by God in all things. Great intellect, scholarship,
oratory skills, and persona were presumptively
accepted as evidence that one held the truth in
righteousness. Most fellowships accepted the opinions of their own leaders, while rejecting the leaders
of the other churches. Such is still the situation today, though they are now uniting for common
purposes without giving up the particulars which identify each as distinct from the other.
Though the founders of these groups were inspired in their work of restoring many of the
Biblical truths and reforming many of the practices which were supplanted during the Dark Ages, all
of their movements eventually became polluted with private interpretations and theories, some of
which came from within themselves, and some from without. After the death of the inspired leaders,
the fundamental principles which led to the acceptance of the revelation of clearer light on the Bible
which the reformers brought to their various congregations were generally set aside by those who
followed after them, being replaced with formalism and the idolizing of the leaders and the customs
they espoused.
The Advent Movement of the early 1800s brought a means of unity among those of the
various denominations who participated in it as they were willing to put away their private opinions
and practices in their common goal of understanding what were their true duties in preparing to meet
their Savior. There was a true revival of spirituality and brotherly love brought forth by the hope of
Christ's expected coming and the realization of each persons need of personal preparation for such.
In America during that time around 50,000 people had left the world-loving fellowships to which
they had formerly belonged to take part in the Advent movement. The leaders of the Advent
movement had no intentions of forming a new denomination,
but were united in the work of
preparing to meet their Lord and Savior.
Then came what was later to be known as The Great Disappointment.
October 22, 1844
came and went. Jesus had not returned, nor was the earth cleansed. Some of those who had not
learned to appreciate God's willingness and desire to lead His people into all truth, and who were
satisfied with the interpretations of their so-called scholars and other leaders were led into accepting
different dates, only to be disappointed again and again. Others, influenced by their unbelieving
families, friends, or associates, or who still longed for the things of the world ( the lusts of the eyes,

the lusts of the flesh, and the pride of life,) just abandoned their hopes, and denounced the
movement. Yet, others were unable to so easily cast away the blessed hope which had so enlightened
their lives. From among these came those who were later to be known as

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS

A number of those who were confirmed on the certainty of the date of October 22, 1844
humbly sought God for an explanation of the situation, and received an answer. It wasn't the date
that was wrong, it was the uninspired interpretation of the nature of the event - the cleansing of the
sanctuary. The true nature of the event was revealed by means of visions given to at least two
different people which produced deep study into the subject. Said study confirmed what was revealed
in the visions.
The visions revealed that it was the Sanctuary in heaven (of which the earthly sanctuary of
the ancient Israelites was an image, a type - Hebrews 8:2) that was to be cleansed. The people were
led to understand that the heavenly Sanctuary was truly a real place with a literal ministration. They
were brought to understand that as under the directions given to Moses the sins of the people were
transferred to the earthly Sanctuary by means of a sacrifice by which they were atoned for, making it
necessary to cleanse that Sanctuary itself of the record of those sins, and that said cleansing was the
purpose of the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). Just so were (and are) the sins of repentant
people, in reality, transferred to the heavenly Sanctuary, there to be atoned for, and that it also
requires a cleansing in the end of the age - in the anti typical Day of Atonement.
They learned that the Bible taught of the reality that there are books of records in heaven
which contain the deeds (good and bad) of all, and the names of those who sought forgiveness for
their evil deeds through God's mercy (Daniel 7: 10; Revelations 20: 12, 21 :27). They saw that these
books are kept so that during the final judgement those who sit in judgement may review them to
understand God's final decisions, and so that those who are judged may see their own history and
God's attempts to redeem them. Also, that the inhabitants of the multitude of the unfallen worlds
and the angels in heaven may fully understand the great controversy between sin and righteousness,
and that God's final dealings with sinners and the rebellion which began in heaven are the outcome of
their own free will choices.
They also learned that during the time of the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary (in its
initial phase) those books would be reviewed in order to determine who would come up in the
resurrection of the just (1 Thessalonians 4: 14-17), and who would come up in the resurrection of the
unjust (Revelation 20:5-7). This phase of the cleansing of the sanctuary is known as the Judgement
of the Dead. It was also revealed that at a certain point in time (which would not be made known
until it actually occurred) the judgement would pass from a review of those who were dead to those
who were then living. This Judgement of (or, for) the Living is necessary to determine who among
the living are worthy of translation to heaven at Christ's personal return
without having
experienced death (I Thessalonians 4: 15, 17). This decision is based on how the individual responds
to truth as it is revealed to him or her - how one's life conforms to the standard of righteousness
revealed during this time of the restoration of all things. The judgement of the dead and the living is
the same except that those who are alive receive their reward without having to first die and then be
resurrected.
They further saw that as the typical service of the cleansing of the Sanctuary under the
Mosaic law involved a judgement which resulted in the blotting out of the sins of the accused, and the
transferring of the sins from the sanctuary where the record of them had been stored onto the one
who was to finally bear them (i.e., the scapegoat - Leviticus 16:8), so it will be in the fulfillment of
the real (antitypical) events. That is, though God and His followers have been accused by the devil of
many things in exercising His divine will and law in the universe, God will ultimately be justified in all
matters, and the devil will bear the fruits of his pride - his own sins, and the sins of those he tempted

but who have repented and had them blotted out of the books of records by Christ's intercession. It is
notable that the scapegoat (Satan) only bears the sins of the repentant which were first transferred to
the sanctuary by means of the blood of the appointed Intercessor, while those who have not repented
bear their own sins upon themselves.
Before the fall and rebellion of Lucifer and his sympathizers, and the later fall of Adam and
Eve, all of the intelligent beings in the universe were under the control of the Holy Spirit. The divine
principles of love were written within the hearts of all. Those laws of truth, justice, and submission to
the will of God (who is the source of love), have nothing in common with pride and self-sufficiency
which were embraced by the devil and his followers. Those who joined in the rebellion were no longer
under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
Those who attain to the resurrection of the just or the translation of the living will have
demonstrated in their lives that they have faith that there truly is a pure motivating force and
intelligence in the universe, and that they have voluntarily chosen to allow such to control their
lives. Those who have sealed their hearts and minds against the power of pure love will have
demonstrated that they would not and could not be happy in the presence of those who have chosen
otherwise. And, as it has always been God's intention to have life filled only with pure love, those
who choose rebellion will have demonstrated
that they prefer nonexistence
(death) to life
(Revelation 2: 11; 20:6, 14; 21 :8). Thus God will give those who cling to rebellion the effect of their
choice rather than to force them to be something different from what they have freely chosen to be.
This will be most painful to God.
It's important to note that in this pre-millennial judgement only the names of those who
have professed faith in God are considered. Those who have never professed allegiance to God are to
be judged during the millennium (Revelation 20:11-13). In the typical service on the day of
atonement, only those whose sins were transferred to the sanctuary received the cleansing on that
day. So it is in the antitype - the true cleansing - only those whose have professed repentance will be
judged on said profession. As only God can judge the heart, and know whether or not one's
repentance has been genuine, so during the judgement the names of those who are in review will
either be retained in the Lamb's Book of Life, or blotted out of it. Such investigation will determine
their final reward or punishment (Exodus 32:32, 33;. Revelation 3:5).
This doctrine of the cleansing of the Sanctuary, which began on October 22, 1844, became a
distinguishing feature of the Seventh Day Adventists. Though other Christians have discounted this
doctrine, none have put forth any sound Biblical argument to disprove it. Along with the new
understanding of the doctrine of the cleansing of the Sanctuary, which partially explained the cause
of the Great Disappointment experienced in October of 1844, was the understanding shown them
from the prophecy which directly related to their whole situation. And that prophecy is in
Revelation chapter 10, particularly verses 8- I 1:
"And the voice which I heard from heaven spake unto me again, and
said, Go and take the little book which is open in the hand of the angel which
standeth upon the sea and upon the earth. And I went unto the angel, and said unto
him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take it, and eat it up; and it shall
make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey. And I took the
little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as
honey: and as soon as r had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, Thou
must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings."
Those early Adventists understood that the "little book" which was in the hand of the angel
was the book of Daniel which had brought them to the end of the prophetic time periods relating to
the cleansing of the Sanctuary. But what they didn't see beforehand was there was to be a
disappointment such as revealed in the foregoing verses. That is, while the little book was being eaten
its taste was sweet, but that it eventually produced a bitterness in the belly - a great disappointment.

10

But such was not to be the end of their experience, as it was revealed to them in the prophecy that
they were to "prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings." What they
were to prophecy again about was the true nature of the cleansing of the sanctuary which took place
at the end of the "2300 days." And so it has been since then.
Not only was the book work aspect of the judgment in the heavenly Sanctuary brought to
light, but more importantly was the nature and effect of Christ's own work therein as it relates to His
sacrifice. That is, His ongoing work as High Priest who ever lives to make intercession by His blood
for the redemption of sinners. They were led to the realization that the true understanding of Christ's
continuing intercession had been lost sight of and displaced ("cast down" and "taken away" - Daniel
8: 11) by the "man of sin." (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4). That the true experience of the early Christian
Church (the doctrines and practices), had been supplanted by the introduction of pagan philosophies
and customs which cumulated in the bringing in of, and the perpetuation of the performance of the
Mass. How this particular issue is at the heart of the matter involving Koresh; how it relates to why
Koresh and others engaged in this warfare against the Branch; how it was influential in the way the
1993 incident and its aftermath have transpired will be discussed further on.
Much of the Seventh Day Adventists' understanding about the nature and latter day events of
the cleansing of the Sanctuary came by means of the gift of the Spirit of prophecy manifested
primarily through one person,

ELLEN G. WIDTE
Seventh Day Adventists believe that the gift of prophecy was manifested in Ellen G. White,
and the SDA Church was raised up and led by her counsel and those who worked with her. As the
Church followed her inspired counsel they prospered, and when they didn't, they suffered loss. The
early SDAs firmly believed and taught that the Bible clearly taught that this gift of God, prophecy (1
Corinthians 12: 10, 28; Ephesians 4: 11), along with all of the other gifts, must exist in the Church
"until that which is perfect is come." (1 Corinthians 13: 10).
Though Ellen White taught that her inspired writings and counsels (much of which were
based on dreams and visions) are a "lesser light" pointing to the greater light of the Holy Bible, she
believed and taught that the inspired testimonies which she was given to bear were to be considered by
her brethren (and herself) as the "voice of God" to the people. That is, she taught that the counsels
which she was given to communicate would bear evidence of their divine origin in the people being
blessed by their taking to heart the testimonies and by personally drawing closer to God for
confirmation of the same, or by being cursed by their rejection thereof..
She never claimed infallibility, as she believed that God was progressively revealing truth in
the restoration of all things (Isaiah 42:19-21). She stated that:
"We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and Heaven alone are
infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have
occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions
with determined persistency,
we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed." Christian
Experience and Teachings, p. 203.
It is her writings, and, most importantly, the Bible texts which are the foundational supports
of her testimonies, that are the main foundation for the SDA's teachings and practices which are
distinguished from the other Christian churches. When the brethren would come to a place where
they were not clear on a point of doctrine or practice they would engage in prayer (often with
fasting) and the Spirit would come upon Ellen White by means of a dream or vision enlightening her
on the matter at hand. She had over two thousand dreams and visions which involved church matters
in her life.
Regarding the reason for the testimonies she was called to bear she compared ancient Israel
with the professed followers of God of the present age. Speaking of ancient Israel she said,

II

"God gave them His law, but they would not obey it. He then gave them ceremonies and
ordinances, that, in the performance of these, God might be kept in remembrance. They were so
prone to forget Him and His claims upon them that it was necessary to keep their minds stirred up to
realize their obligations to obey and honor their Creator. Had they been obedient, and loved to keep
God's commandments, the multitude of ceremonies and ordinances would not have been required.
"If the people who now profess to be God's peculiar treasure would obey His requirements, as
specified in His word, special testimonies would not be given to awaken them to their duty and
impress upon them their sinfulness and their fearful danger in neglecting to obey the word of God."
Though she has written around 2 million words, and is the most widely published woman in
the world, most people have never heard of her. Her formal education extended only through the
third grade, yet she wrote on virtually every facet of the human experience - natural science and
psychological phenomenon; education and marital relations; health reform and church organization;
sacred history and sacred prophecy, and much more. Her inspired counsels were both of a general
nature and specific to individuals and groups.
Over ten years ago, Ellen White was given an award posthumously by a prominent health
organization in America for being 100 years ahead of her time in regard to her teachings on healthful
living. Though she was a firm believer in divine healing, she consistently espoused temperate living as
one's duty to God. She went from being a very sickly young girl who was in extreme pain when
traveling, who had what she termed a veracious appetite for meat, and who said that she could not eat
a piece of bread the size of a silver dollar, to a mature woman who was very active in writing,
traveling, public speaking, and was a prominent advocate of balanced vegetarianism,
and of
abstinence from all harmful foods, drinks, tobacco, alcohol, narcotics, patented medicines (except in
extreme circumstances), and other harmful practices. Along with her teachings on the judgement and
the Christian lifestyle, she was given precious light on

THE SEVENTH DAY SABBATH

The beginning of the 1800s was a time of great general revival in the Christian world. The
English and American Bible Societies were extremely active in distributing the Bible throughout the
world. Due to the desire for religious liberty which motivated the Puritan Pilgrims to settle in
America, and which reason also motivated many others after them to seek refuge here, this country
became the main place for the examination and the exercise of religious doctrines and practices
which had been repressed by the political powers in the Old World.
Among those doctrines which received renewed attention was that of the seventh day
Sabbath. That is, Which day is the true Sabbath of God - Saturday (the 7th day of the week), or
Sunday (the first day of the week)? Shortly after The Great Disappointment
of 1844, a woman
named Rachel Oakes, a Seventh Day Baptist, brought to one of the leaders of what was to later
become known as the Seventh Day Adventists, Joseph Bates, the truth of the seventh day Sabbath.
He, in turn, brought that truth to Ellen White and others in their fellowship. Shortly thereafter Ellen
White was given a vision of the heavenly sanctuary in which she saw the Ark of the Covenant, and
the Ten Commandments therein. The Sabbath Commandment (the fourth) had a halo around it. By
means of this vision and other direct revelations on the subject, along with much study on the history
of the controversy
over, and the perpetuity of, God's law, the Holy Spirit convinced those
Adventists to begin to observe the seventh day Sabbath, and to teach the binding obligations of all of
God's law as applicable under the New Covenant.
It is written, "And he [Jesus] said unto them, The sabbath was made for man." (Mark 2:27).
This statement, along with the many others on the blessings which are in the Sabbath, shows that
there is a purpose in the keeping of the seventh day which doesn't exist in any other day of the
God-created week. As it was first ordained as a memorial of the creation and its Creator, Christ
Himself, then there would be neither purpose nor necessity to change its memorial qualities to

12

another day, for Christ Himself honored the day when He rested on it between His crucifixion when
He stated that His work was "finished" (John 19:30), and His resurrection on the first day of the
week when He took up His work again.
The keeping of Sunday as the so-called Sabbath had become a prominent feature of what
became known as the Catholic Church. The leaders of the Catholic Church boast that they, on their
own authority, changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Christ,
which took place on the first day of the week, Sunday. This change is said to have been made official
in the 4th century A.D. But today we also have those who do not consider themselves Catholics but
who still keep Sunday as a special day of worship. These give different reasons for doing such, but are
nonetheless basically united with Catholics in their opposition to keeping the true seventh day
Sabbath, Saturday.
Following are some statements from the Catholic Church on the matter:
"Protestantism, in disregarding the authority of the [Catholic] Church has no good reason for
its Sunday theory, and ought, logically, to keep Saturday as the Sabbath." John Gilmary Shae, "The
Observance of Sunday and Civil Law For Its Enforcement," The American Catholic Quarterly Review,
8 (January, 1883), p. 152. [brackets added]
"If the Bible is the only guide for the Christians, then the Seventh-day Adventist is right in
observing the Saturday with the Jew." Bertrand L. Conway, "The Question Box Answers" (New York:
The Columbus Press, 1900), p. 254.
"If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath day. In
keeping Sunday they are following a law of the Catholic Church." Albert Smith (Chancellor of the
Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore), replying for the Cardinal in a letter of February 10, 1920).
"The [Catholic] Church changed the observance of the Sabbath to Sunday by right of their
divine, infallible authority given to her by her founder, Jesus Christ. The Protestant, claiming the
Bible to be the only guide of faith, had no warrant for observing Sunday. In this matter the
Seventh-Day
Adventist is the only consistent Protestant."
"The Question Box," The Catholic
Universe Bulletin, 69 (August 14, 1942), p. 4 [brackets added]
"Nowhere in the Bible do we find that Christ or the Apostles ordered that the Sabbath be
changed from Saturday to Sunday. We have the commandment of God given to Moses to keep holy
the Sabbath day [Exodus 20:8-11], that is the Seventh-day of the week, Saturday. Today most
Christians keep Sunday because it has been revealed to us by the [Catholic] Church outside the Bible."
"To Tell You The Truth," The Catholic Virginian, 22 October 3, 1947), p. 9. [brackets added]
While in one position there are those who feel that they have the authority to change God's
laws according to their will, in another there are those who are known as antinomians.
Those are
they who believe in "the theological doctrine that by faith and God's gift of grace through the gospel
a Christian is freed not only from the Old Testament law of Moses [but from] all forms of
legalism .... " Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, "antinomianism." [brackets added].
This doctrine is embraced in all or in part by many Protestant churches, and particularly
among the Baptists (who, technically, are not properly called Protestants,
as they trace their
doctrinal lineage through groups which were not accepted as being in fellowship with the Roman
Catholic Churches). Their answer to the Sabbath controversy is basically that we are not "under law,"
but "under grace," and that the Sabbath was nailed to the cross, along with all the law. The relevance
of this matter to the situation with Koresh and the attitude towards the Branch Davidian Seventh
Day Adventist Church's presence in Waco may be partially understood by the facts that Baptists are
quite numerous and influential in Texas, and particularly in Waco because of the presence there of

13

one of their main institutes of higher education, Baylor University. More on this matter will be
discussed further on. Also, bear in mind that under one of the six flags which have flown over Texas
throughout its history, Roman Catholicism was the mandatory religion of the state.
Yet in another position are those, such as the Church of England, who say that the law is still
binding, but that the change was not made on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church, but rather
by Christ, Himself. These wrest the Scriptures out of their context to make it appear that the
keeping of the seventh day as the Sabbath was only for the Jews, being only a provision of the
Mosaic law specifically for them, and thus was changed with the death of Christ.
Regarding the controversy over the Sabbath (the 7th day), it is of note that the calendar
which is in common use in Western countries starts with Sunday (the 1st day) and ends with Saturday
(the 7th day). Though the dates assigned to the days of the weeks have been changed at times
through the course of history, the actual weekly cycle has been uninterrupted since its inception.
It is notable that in the last couple of decades there has been an active movement in
Germany (which has historically held an anti-Jewish attitude) to change their calendar so that
Monday becomes the first day of their calendar week, and Sunday the seventh day. With a change
like this, and the education of a new generation or two to forget the true history of the controversy,
the German society (and others whom they influence) would be believing that Sunday was the seventh
day of the Bible, and thus the true Sabbath. Some are even trying to make a ten day week, further
obliterating the memory of the seven day week established at creation by a wise Creator.
The Catholic leaders say that they had the authority to have made the change from Saturday
to Sunday, though there is nothing in the Bible which sanctioned such a change. They base their
claim on Christ's words, "whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This statement was made both to
Peter (Matthew 16: 19), and to the church (Matthew 18: 18). The controversy arises over to whom
exactly does the promise apply - those who are truly acting in accordance with God's will, or those
who are only pretending to do so.
By the fourth century A.D., the church was so flooded with pagans and their philosophies
through associations with, and concessions from the Roman government, and through compromises
due to persecution, that she could scarcely be recognized as the congregation which originated in the
Hebrew/Judean, Biblical culture. It wasn't the few remaining faithful followers of Jesus of Nazareth
who attempted to bind a change in the law of God on earth or heaven, it was those who "forsake the
holy covenant [God's law]" Daniel 11:30.
There is a prophecy which states that there was to be a power thus described, "And he shall
speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to
change times and laws," Daniel 7:25. This text has been understood to apply to the Catholic Church
to one degree or another by many in the Protestant Reformation, and by others.
As stated, the term catholic means universal. According to Merriam-Webster's
Dictionary,
"Universal is likely to suggest that which is worldwide rather than pertinent to or characteristic of
the whole universe; it is often further narrowed to refer to the world of men and human affairs or to
important or significant parts of this world. It is likely to indicate a unanimity or conformity of
practice or belief or a broad comprehensiveness" (emphasis added).
At no time in history was Judeo-Christianity ever considered as being universal (worldwide).
But there is another worship system whose influence has truly been universal. That is, sun worship, as
it was propagated in ancient Babylon and was spread throughout the whole world (Revelation 14:8;
17:2.; & 18:3). The heart of sun worship doesn't lie in the symbols and other things (idols) variously
used to express it, but in the principles which underlie it. The early Christians, who were primarily
Israelites, kept the seventh day Sabbath (Saturday) while the rest of the world which observed a day
of rest from labor, or a day of worship did so on the first day of the week, Sunday, after the custom
of sun worship. The customs of those who observed Sunday had little or nothing in common with
those truly kept the Sabbath. Sunday-keeping
was more a time for festivities than for religious
expression. As Christianity
experienced its rapid growth, the Sunday-keeping
customs of the

14

non-Judaic peoples, and those of the Israelites who had abandoned God's covenant, were found to be
in conflict with the seventh day Sabbath-keeping Christians.
At the same time, the hostilities between the pagan Romans and the Jews were intensifying.
The Romans were making laws against the practices of the Jews because of the Jews revolting against
Roman rule. As early as the year 135, Roman emperors were making laws against the observance of
the Sabbath, and the use of the Hebrew calendar. The Christians (Jew and Gentile) were being
negatively affected by these Roman laws designed to put down the Jewish uprisings. Those
persecutions were among the things which caused the weak in faith to "forsake the holy covenant"
(Daniel 11 :28-39) - the law of God as expressed in the Bible. Many Christians fell away from the
pure faith due to the cruel enforcement of anti-Sabbath keeping laws, and proceeded to compromise
their principles by accepting the pagan manners and times of worship, which included Sunday. It
wasn't until a couple of centuries later that those who thought to "change times and laws" (Daniel
9:25) attempted to convey any Sabbath qualities to Sunday. (For further reading on this matter see
<Three Sabbaths>>>
In many of the countries where the doctrines of Christ were preached the ancient animosities
against anything that had its roots in Biblical Judaism (such as Christianity) were so great that even
those who embraced Christianity were unable to overcome their previously held prejudices. A good
example of this was the Egyptians. Due to their experience with Moses which resulted in the Exodus
of the Israelites from Egypt and its general destruction, some Egyptians at the time of Christianity's
spread were in the custom of fasting on the seventh day (Saturday). This was done in antagonism to
the law of God which declared the seventh day Sabbath to be a feast day (Leviticus 23). Thus, many
of the Egyptians who professed to accept Christianity would not even partake of the Lord's Supper
(originally a fellowship meal) on the seventh day, but rather would fast, clinging to their ancient
custom of animosity to God's law. The Egyptians were certainly not alone in such antagonistic
practices.
It was in the fourth century (321 A.D.) that the emperor of Rome, Constantine, made what is
believed to be the first national Sunday law. That law provided pains of civil penalties for failure to
observe a rest from labor on Sunday in the cities (not in the countryside). A few years later (324 A.D.,
at the first Council of Nicea), many of the so-called Christian bishops who were actively forsaking
God's covenant decided to supplant the Jewish calendar which had been used for reckoning the time
of the annual celebration of Christ's resurrection with the Roman (Julian) calendar. A look at the
prevailing sentiments of the time regarding the time of the observance of the memorial of Christ's
resurrection will provide an insight into what prompted the outlawing of the observance of the
seventh day Sabbath a few years later at the Synod of Laodecia (327 A.D.), to wit,
"...the Council addresses the Church of Alexandria, ...'All the brethren in the east who
formerly celebrated Easter with the Jews [at the same time], will henceforth keep it at the
same time as the Romans, with us, and with all those who from ancient times have celebrated
the feast at the same time with us ....
"The Emperor Constantine made the following announcement in his letter to all who
were not present at the Council: '...It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the
holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom (the calculation) of the Jews, who had soiled their
hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded .... We ought not
therefore to have anything in common with the Jews .... we desire, dearest brethren, to
separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful to us to
hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast.. ..it would still be
your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such a wicked people ....As, on the
one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord, and
as, on the other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of
the North and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable .... You should consider not
only that the number of Churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right

15

to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the
Jews .... [and] accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which
takes place in the assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will
of God ....we can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted me, as I
desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together, seeing that the divine power has
made use of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing
faith, peace, and unity to flourish amongst us .... " History of the Councils p. 322-4 [brackets
added]
How widely this varies from Christ's own words "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses
seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their
works: for they say, and do not." Matthew 23:2,3. Or of Paul's attitude in Romans chapters 9-11, and
2 Corinthians 3: 16. The antagonism noted above, though said to be against the Jewish leaders who
would have been the ones announcing the times for the feast days (which times the Christians had
also been observing) had another underlying motive - that is, the very nature and character of the
feast keeping itself.
Regarding the Biblical feast days, and particularly the Sabbath, it is written that "no work" is
to be done on them (Leviticus 23). Though there were notable exceptions to said commandment _
minor work needed for eating purposes (Exodus 12:16), and doing good to preserve life (Matthew
12: 10-12) - the nature of said times is more fully delineated as being times to cease from "doing thy
pleasure, ... doing thine own ways, ... finding thine own pleasure, ... speaking thine own words" (Isaiah
58:13), and to "call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and to honour him." id.
Though there is a certain similar reverence observed in the keeping of Sunday by the Catholic
Church in general (at least in principle, if not in action), and also by many of those others who
believe that they have the authority from heaven to treat Sunday as the Sabbath, there is readily
observed one basic difference between the nature of the two practices. Sabbath keeping involves a
ceasing from self, while Sunday keeping involves an exaltation of self. Sabbath keeping involves
focusing on the works of God (both in creation and recreation), and Sunday keeping focuses on the
works of men.
The Lord has specifically stated the reasons for His people to enter into His rest "If thou
turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a
delight, the holy of the LORD, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor
finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the
LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage
of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." Isaiah 58: 13, 14. The blessing
contained therein cannot be transferred by the will of men to another day. Neither can anyone meet
the requirements of that covenant promise without the graces of Christ active in their life. Those
graces were also available to the world before Christ came in person by means of the presence of the
Holy Spirit. The sacrifice of Christ for the redemption of the world was made known to Adam and
Eve right after their fall, as witnessed and prefigured by Abel's sacrifice (Genesis 4:4), and was thus
carried down through the ages (though the truth of the matter was lost sight of due to the
introduction of private opinions and theories, and idolatry). The perpetuity of the Sabbath is also
declared in Isaiah 66:22, 23: "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall
remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to
pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to
worship before me, saith the LORD."
In the Catholic Church the focus is on the performance
of the Mass (in which the
communicants are also performers), and in the non-Catholic Sunday-keeping congregations the focus
is on going to church. In both of these the focus is on the work of those who lead out. In the
Catholic Church, and in those similar to it, those (the priests) who perform the Mass (i.e., the
sacrifice [sic] of Christ) which culminates in the making of the body and blood of Christ with their

16

own mouths (words), are the focus of the day. In non-Catholic Sunday keeping churches the focus is
similarly on the minister, pastor, or elder who blesses the bread and wine by which Christ is to be
remembered. In both of these is demonstrated the presumed authority to appoint and establish men
(and, rarely, women) to created positions of special privilege and authority. That is, it is only those
thus appointed who have the supposed authority to bless the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, and
then only at the times and places also designated by the leaders of the tradition followed (all of which
are the contrivances of mere men).
But this mistaken principle of focusing on the works of men, rather than on the works of
God was not a new thing in the Christian Church, for it existed in the days of the apostles (3 John
1:9). Nor can it be honestly said that it was the heathen and pagan powers of themselves that gained
the advantage over the commandment-keeping
Christians. But it must be admitted that it was God,
Himself, which allowed the serpent's flood to attempt to do away with the true Church (Revelation
12:15), and who allowed the holy feasts to be taken away from the Church at large (Hosea 2:11), and
to be replaced by pagan things. This was not the first time God had found it necessary to do such a
thing. It is written of ancient Israel,
"I lifted up mine hand unto them also in the wilderness, that I would
scatter them among the heathen, and disperse them through the countries; Because
they had not executed my judgments, but had despised my statutes, and had polluted
my sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols. Wherefore I gave them
also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live."
(Ezekiel 20:23-25).
These things were allowed to happen to the Christians because they were lowering the
standard, despite the fact they were warned against doing so (1 Corinthians 11: 17-34). In wanting the
approval of men, rather than the approval of God, backsliding leaders in the Christian Church sought
large congregations and political advantages which came only by compromising God's holy laws.
Even this backsliding was predicted in the early days of the church (2 Thessalonians 2:3,4). But
though those things which are "not good" were allowed, God never intended for His people to
continue in them. It was His purpose to teach a lesson which would never be forgotten (Nahum 1:9).
That lesson is that no matter what the degree, any transgression of God's commandments,
statutes, and judgements of love opens the door to that which eventually leads to misery and death.
The ancient Israelites, as a body, didn't learn this lesson even after their miraculous deliverance from
their bondage in Egypt. Neither did the early Christians, as a body, fully learn that lesson after their
miraculous deliverance from the bondage of sin by Christ's sacrifice. It wasn't long after the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost that two of the disciples were found lying to
God (Acts 5:1-11).
Due to of their acceptance of the truth regarding the seventh day Sabbath, Adventists, in
general, have been labeled "Judaizers," "legalists," "antichrists," and other similar derogatory epithets.
Most people don't understand how this controversy over the Sabbath has affected life in America.
One of the more recent developments
is the contention regarding the displaying of the Ten
Commandments in public places such as schools and courtrooms.
One of the organizations which is against displaying the Ten Commandments is the Roman
Catholic Church, as strange as this may sound. The reason for this is that their version of the Ten
Commandments differs from that which is in the Bible, and which is accepted by most Protestants. In
the Catholic version, the second Commandment regarding the bowing down before idols is eliminated,
and the tenth Commandment is divided into two separate ones to make up for the elimination of the
second, thus still keeping the number at ten.
In their enumeration, the Sabbath commandment is the third in order, while in the Bible it is
the fourth.
As the Catholic hierarchy would rather not have their adherents exposed to the
Protestant (Biblical) version of the Ten Commandments that have been historically displayed in the

17

public places of America, they, therefore, would rather have none displayed at all. It has long been a
general teaching in the Catholic Church for their members not to even talk with Protestants,
especially on matters of religious doctrine. Also, in their wording of the Sabbath commandment the
words concerning the Lord creating the world in six days and He Himself resting on the seventh day,
and therefore hallowing and sanctifying the seventh day in the original commandment are purposely
left out, thereby further attempting to obliterate the true meaning and nature of the Sabbath - that
of God's rest which men are invited to enter into.
This same antagonism towards the exposure of Catholic assumptions is also manifest in the
moves to make Spanish a second language in many or all of the States of America. The Roman
Catholic Church is seeking to prevent the Spanish-speaking Catholics in America from being able to
come in contact with the Protestant doctrines by means of the English-speaking
Americans under
the guise of preserving the cultural heritage which was forced on them long ago - Roman
Catholicism, and their authority to enforce Sunday keeping by civil edict. Many are aware that the
free preaching of the Protestant doctrines in Catholic countries is not allowed by their governments.
Yet the antagonism against Adventists, in general, by the Roman Catholic hierarchy is not
limited to the matter of the Sabbath. At the heart of the Sabbath controversy is the matter of the
leadership's authority to define doctrines and practices, and to ordain elders (priests, bishops etc.).
Foremost in the exercise of their assumed authority is their ability to vote in a new pope. Even
though a pope occupies the position of being the "Vicar of Christ," that is, Christ's mouthpiece, His
prophet, it only takes a vote of 2/3 of those who vote to make one of their own the pope. That
means that as many as 1/3 of the voting elders may not believe that the one elected pope is not
worthy of being what he is proclaimed to be. But it is necessary to keep a pope upon the throne in
order to keep up the appearance that Christ is in the church through the living Spirit of prophecy. So
without cheapening the matter, the controversy between the Adventists in general and the Roman
Catholics may be summed up in one phrase - dueling prophets, each representing diametrically
opposed principles. On the one hand is God's law and those He inspires to uphold it, and on the other
are men's private, satanically inspired interpretations
of that law and those whom they elect to
propagate it.
This controversy,
in principle, did not begin in the Christian era as Jesus, Himself,
condemned the practice as it was already existing among the Jews of His day (Matthew 15:9; Mark
7:7-13; Colossians 2:22; & Titus 1: 14). Nor is it confined to the Roman Catholic Church, but
extends to all professed Sunday-keeping Christian churches (and even many Sabbath-keeping ones).
There is so much confusion in the so-called Christian churches regarding doctrines and practices that
such have become a veritable Babylon (The name "Babylon" has come to mean "confusion"
[mixing], because it was at the tower of Babel were man's language was confounded [mixed] - Genesis
11 :9).
Due to the fact that the condition of those organizations has been notably deteriorating
morally and spiritually (being mixed with countless private interpretations of the Bible truths), the
Adventists have come to recognize that God has just so designated those ministries - as "Babylon."
(Revelation 14:8; 18:2), and that God's true people within them will have to come out of them if
they do not want to partake of the judgements which will eventually fall on all who constitute
"Babylon."
The title of Babylon is given to those organizations not merely because of the confusion
they have brought to the world over the Sabbath, but also because of the many other doctrines and
practices which they have attempted to pass off as Christian - that is, Christmas-keeping,
Easter
celebrating, etc. - while knowing all along that such things are of pagan origin. It is written, "Love
not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the
Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the
pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." 1 John 2:15, 16. One does not have to long
observe any of the popular churches to sense the presence of any or all of those things in the
ministry, and thereby in the congregations at large.

18

This should not be construed to imply that there are not sincere Christians in those
congregations, but is said to impress upon the seeker of truth the reality of why God has to call His
people out of those organizations, and the doctrines and practices they espouse, to wit, "Babylon the
great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a
cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her
fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of
the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from
heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive
not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities."
Revelation 18:2-5.
Differences in doctrines and practices may have no great effect on those who are opposed to
them unless they enter the politics of everyday life and the laws of the community. And such has it
been with Sunday keeping. That is, they have been enforced by civil law, with pains in varying
degrees upon the transgressors thereof. Thus, in light of the long past and more recent history of
such manmade laws, and the current attempts being made to reestablish the dominion of those
authorities which espouse the civil enforcement of Sunday laws, and in light of the revelation and
fulfillment of certain Bible prophecies (Revelation 13: 11-18), Adventists have been led to understand
and teach that the enforcement of Sunday laws will be

THE MARK OF THE BEAST

In order to understand what is meant by the phrase "mark of the beast," we need to know
what is meant by the terms "mark" and "beast." A mark is something which is used for identification
purposes. To understand why the enforcement of Sunday laws (and the principles underlying them) is
to be the mark of the beast (something which identifies one with the beast) we need only be aware of
some elementary truths.
The first is the fact that the mark (the sign) of God is in His law, and particularly in the
Sabbath commandment (Exodus 31: 16, 17; 13 :8, 9: Deuteronomy 6:4-8; 11: 18; Ezekiel 20: 12, 20).
The second is that man without the Spirit of God is but a beast (2 Peter 2:9-12; Jude 1:4-10;
Titus 1:12). This is also borne out by the symbolical use of beasts in prophecy to represent nations
which arose from the mere will of men (through strife and turmoil), rather than by the anointing of
the Holy Spirit (see Daniel chapters 7 & 8). Thus the mark of the beast is the mark of man acting
without the Spirit of God - man acting as a beast.
Next we need to learn the identity of this beast, and what it means for man to act as a beast.
This we may do by looking into the prophecy which reveals this matter, and the symbols employed
therein.
"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had
two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of
the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to
worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
"And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from
heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth
by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast;
saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast,
which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the
image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as
many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all,
both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right
hand, or in their foreheads:" Revelation 13:11-16.

19

As revealed in chapters 7 & 8 of the book of Daniel, beasts represent nations and
governments,
and horns represent their distinctive political powers, be they individuals or groups.
That horns represent political powers, and how a beast uses its horns is also seen in a prophecy
recorded in the book of Zechariah:
"Then lifted I up mine eyes, and saw, and behold four horns. And I
said unto the angel that talked with me, What be these? And he answered me, These
are the horns which have scattered Judah, Israel, and Jerusalem.
"And the LORD shewed me four carpenters. Then said I, What come
these to do? And he spake, saying, These are the horns which have scattered Judah,
so that no man did lift up his head: but these are come to fray them, to cast out the
horns of the Gentiles, which lifted up their horn over the land of Judah to scatter it."
Zechariah 1: 18-21
The way a beast (a government) with horns (political powers) enforces its will is by the use
of its horns to dominate (to push and scatter), rather than by using only the power of persuasion in
speech and reason, as a man is capable of doing.
Therefore, this beast with two horns which makes an image of the beast which was before it,
and forces his mark upon all, represents a nation with two dominant political powers. Those two
horns are described as being lamb-like. As in Bible symbolism a lamb represents Christ, then those
two horns represent two political powers which have the appearance of being Christian. There is but
one nation so represented in the history of the world - the United States of America. To further
understand this heaven-inspired interpretation, and the chronological proof of said position, please
read our publications
<The
World, Yesterday,
Today, Tomorrow>>>
& <War
News
Forecast>>>. <The Great Controversy, p. 439-450>
The notable part of the prophecy is the hypocrisy revealed by the fact that the nation
appears lamb-like (Christian), but speaks "as a dragon" (the devil - Revelation 12:9). As the devil is a
liar (John 8:44), then for this nation to speak as a dragon would be for it to lie. For example, for
the government created by the Constitution, and bound by the prescriptions thereof, to repudiate the
principles of the 1st Amendment thereto which prohibits the Congress from making any law which
favors an established religion and enforce Sunday, the first day of the week, as a day of rest, such
would be a lie in the character of the dragon (the devil) - hypocrisy. The same would be true if
Congress were to make a law enforcing rest on the seventh day, Saturday, the Sabbath.
It is also said of this two horned beast that "he exerciseth all the power of the first beast
before him." (verse 12). The "first beast before him" represents the world under the time when men
used political powers to compel the consciences of men in matters of religion (whether those
political powers were those of the Papacy, or those of the Protestant nations). For the two horned
beast to exercise "all the power" of that beast, it would also have to exercise the same power of
compelling consciences in matters of religion. As true religion touches on every facet of life, then
the compelling of the consciences in matters of religion can also reach to most any aspect of daily
life.
This compelling of the conscience by the first beast was accomplished by the punishing of
what was determined to be heresy with pains of civil and criminal penalties. Not infrequently this was
instigated through the will of only one person, the pope, or one of his representatives. So it is, and
will be, with the two horned beast as he exercises all of the power of the first beast before him.
Whether it be by pope, monarch, president, or judge, the exercising of the principle and power is the
same - assumed authority vested in one person to punish dissenters. The exercise of this power in
America is evident in the exercise of a president sending troops to wars which Congress has not
declared to be wars, and in judges declaring their opinions to be overriding the plain declarations of
The Constitution.

20

It is not alone in the enforcement of Sunday as a day of rest that the hypocrisy (speaking as
a dragon) will exist, but in the prohibition of the free exercise of the true religion of Sabbath
keepers. That is, concerning the keeping of the Sabbath the Biblical law reads,
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou
labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God:
in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy
manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them
is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and
hallowed it." Exodus 20:8-11.
Thus with a law prohibiting work on Sundays, Sabbath-keepers would be deprived of one of
the biblically commanded six days in which to work, and would be prohibited from the free exercise
of the religion of the Bible. There are many other aspects of the religion of the Bible which men
have been, and will be, compelled to disregard. At the same time, they will be compelled to accept
ways and means which are contrary to the true religion of the Bible. More 011 this later.
While some may be so naive as to say such things are not possible here in America, just such
a movement to accomplish said agenda has been under way for well over a century, yea, much longer
than that. Though the means which are used to accomplish the purpose may not appear to be
religious in the beginning, such is the ultimate goal of many involved with it. For example, in 1960
the Supreme Court declared Sunday laws constitutional for purposes of energy conservation. For a
fuller explanation of the ramifications of that court decision, and how some are trying to use it to
sustain their errors in the realm of religion, see our publication <The Energy Crisis and Sunday
Sacredness>>>.
The difference between receiving the mark in one's hand compared to one's forehead is that
the hand represents one's work, while the forehead represents one's thinking. So to receive the mark
in one's hand means that the person accepts the beast-enforced Sunday laws in order to work, to earn
a living, but they don't believe the religious or other reasonings behind the mark. That is, they
receive it out of convenience. While those who receive the mark in their forehead do so because they
believe in the ideological (religious and/or philosophical) principles of the beast-enforced law. As God
requires His people to "bind them [His commandments] for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be
as frontlets between thine eyes" (Deuteronomy 6:8), so the beast will be attempting to put himself in
the place of God, and require like reverence.
While Adventists have been teaching for well over a century that the mark of the beast will
be the enforcement of Sunday laws, Ellen White also stated that, "Not all in regards to this matter is
yet understood, and will not be understood until the unrolling of the scroll." Testimonies for the
Church, Vol. 8, p. 159. So, what more of the matter of the mark of the beast is to be understood,
how it relates to the these issues, and how such also directly relates to the matter of Koresh will be
discussed further on, for the scroll has unrolled further.

DEAD OR ALIVE?
There is another Biblical doctrine held by Adventists, in general, which is also a part of the
controversy, and is a factor in why the things involving Koresh transpired the way they did - that of
the state of the dead. That is, we accept the Bible revelations that the dead are not conscious of
anything, for they do not exist at all; that the soul which a man is is mortal, not immortal. If such
was not the case from the beginning then there would have been no need for there to be a "tree of
life" in the garden of Eden (Genesis 2:9, 3:22 & 24), for man would have had eternal life without it.
We believe in the resurrection of the soul which is made up of the dust of the earth with the Spirit of

21

God within (Genesis 2:7). [For an in depth study on this matter please see our study, < Where the
Devil is Hell? >]. The relevance of this particular doctrine to the matter of Koresh (and those who
wanted to destroy the true Branch Church) is rather broad.
In one position there are the Catholics who teach that the soul is immortal. They profit
from this belief by taking money for Masses said for the dead who are purported to be in Purgatory.
But the belief in the immortality of the soul is not restricted to the Catholic Church. It has pervaded
much of the Protestant world also. The notion crept into the Christian Church in general when
partially converted pagans who came into the Church in the early centuries of its history brought
with them the influence of the Greek philosophers (Neo-Platoists) who taught that the soul was
immortal and that when a man dies his soul first goes to the sun to be purified, and then on to its
final abode. That same general influence had crept into the Jewish community in the times
immediately preceding the advent of Christ and may be see in some of their writings of the time.
Thus even some Jews who accepted Christ also brought this error into the Church.
In another position is Spiritualism.
Those who believe that we can communicate with the
dead because they believe that they are still alive in some form or another are becoming more
numerous, and their influence has reached into nearly every facet of society. Whether it be
spiritualism, witchcraft, satanism, or any other form of occultic or pagan/heathen philosophy, the
preaching of the Biblical doctrine which declares that when one dies "His breath goeth forth, he
returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish," (Psalms 146: 2-4), and that "the living
know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for
the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished;
neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun .... for there is
no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest." (Ecclesiastes 9:
3-6, 10), does not sit well with those who profit by the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and
especially so with those who say that they can communicate with the dead. Neither does the teaching
of the binding obligation of the commandments
of God and the judgments which attend their
continued violation as they are summated in the saying, "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." (Ezekiel
18:20).
So, in the light of this point of Biblical doctrine which Adventists accept and teach, it may be
readily understood why many who are aware of our position would be desirous to see the Branch
Church defamed through the association with one such as Koresh. As the doctrine can not be
properly rebutted, the thing which remains for its opponents to attack is the character of the Church
through a disparaging portrayal of the true facts relative to Koresh and his followers.
Parallel with the rise of Adventism was the rise of Spiritualism in its modern manifestation.
It is well known among many Christian ministers that those who embrace witchcraft and Satanism
actually train people to infiltrate churches in order to disrupt the work of, and to bring disrepute
upon, those who are most active in preaching against the prevailing evils. The best evidence of this
fact comes from the testimonies of those who have been involved in such things, and have been
saved by the Gospel of Christ. This fact has particular significance as it relates to Koresh's coming to
the Branch Church when he did. More on this later. The point here is that there has been a cleverly
disguised warfare by those involved in the various forms of Spiritualism against the work of
Adventists, in general, due to our stand on Bible truths.
While this doctrine of the nonexistent state of the dead is not unique to us, and there are
other equally, or more important doctrines which we proclaim that have also brought the enmity of
the devil and his agents against us, this one in particular does expose one of his very first lies to
mankind - that is, "Ye shall not surely die." Genesis 3:4. But, as will be seen, there are other doctrines
which expose in even greater depths the nature of his sin, and those opposed to the law of God.
Along with the rise of modern spiritualism in the world is that of the same among those who
profess Christianity. This has been brought in by means of the widespread practice of the so-called
speaking in tongues - otherwise known as gloss ilia. Adventists, in general, teach that the true
Biblical manifestation of the so-named gift is that of a person given the ability to speak in a known

22

language which is unknown him or her in order to preach the Gospel to the diverse people of the
earth. Such was the case on the day of Pentecost when the gift was first seen. It is written,
"And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the
Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every
nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were
confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed
and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? And how
hear we everv man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites,
and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and
Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and
proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. "
Acts 2:4-11.
Yet those today who profess to exercise this gift engage in what may be simply described as
speaking baby-like
gibberish. Though many among them say that they are speaking in some
heavenly language, the sounds they make are those with which they are already familiar. The English
speaking person makes sounds native to him, while then Russian speaking one makes sounds familiar
to him. Very rarely does one of a language foreign to the speaker of tongues hear in his own
language. Often when one of them does speak in what they call tongues there is an interpretation
given by another, which professes the speech to be a message from God. Thus the simple gift of
languages becomes, as it were, the gift of prophecy, further confusing the true gifts of the Holy
Spirit.
What is even. more revealing of the unsanctified nature of these manifestations is the way it
is practiced among those who give themselves up to its influence. The apostle Paul wrote, "How is it
then, brethren? when ye come together, everyone
of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a
tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. If any man
speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one
interpret. But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to
himself, and to God." 1 Corinthians 14:26-28.
Anyone
who has seen the common practice of this in the Pentecostal
and similar
congregations has witnessed that sometimes everyone on stage is speaking in some strange tongue,
and oft times many in the audience are doing so simultaneously. Thus there would be dozens, if not
hundreds or thousands all doing it at the same time. Paul's reason for admonishing Christ's disciples to
only speak in a foreign language "by two, or at the most by three, and that by course [one after
another]; and let one interpret," is "If therefore the whole church be come together into one place,
and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not
say that ve are mad?" 1 Corinthians 14:23. Evidently those who disregard this counsel by their group
participation in speaking gibberish do not give much weight to Paul's counsel, or are unable to do so.
As we, as Adventists, are outspoken against the abuse of the true gift of tongues, and the
counterfeiting of it, we again see another significant group of people who would prefer to see our
influence and testimony silenced and our reputation sullied.
------- 0 ------When near her death in 1915, Ellen White was asked if she thought God would give the gift
of prophecy to another after her. Her reported answer was "I don't know." According to the historic
Church teachings on this gift that question should not have even been asked, for Christ had not yet
come, and the Church was not then, nor is she now, in the unity which God desires for her. Though
the SDA Church has not, as a body, accepted anyone claiming to have the gift since then, they do
claim that God is still giving an occasional dream here and there, mostly for counsel on minor
matters. Even then, these manifestations are frowned upon by many in the denomination, as it has
been drilled into their minds, by some, that there is no more need for the gift. They say that the

23

writings of Ellen White, and those of their Bible scholars and pastors are all that they need to guide
them through the pearly gates. Yet at the same time, they pretty much disregard the counsels of
Ellen White, especially those which state that there is to be more light to come to the church
through God's appointed means - the gift of prophecy.
Anyone who is familiar with the Bible should be aware that one of the continuing conflicts
revealed therein is God's attempt to reach the people by means of his prophets, and the people's
almost wholesale rejection of them. It is written, "Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he
revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3 :7). Sacred history is replete with fallen
man's inability to receive instruction from those inspired by God to bring them redeeming truth.
The need for the prophetic gift was demonstrated by the Israelites in their experience at Mt.
Sinai. After God had personally spoken the Ten Commandments to the people, they responded by
saying to Moses, "Speak thou with us, and we will hear: but let not God speak with us, lest we die."
The inability of fallen man to bear hearing God's personal voice is not restricted to the people in the
Old Testament times. Were the gift of prophecy not needed in the Church today, Christ would not
have warned of false prophets and false christs (Matthew 7: 15; 24: 11, 24), and of the need for His
followers to avoid rejecting truth as it was to be revealed to them by the Holy Spirit (1 John 4:1) who
has been sent to lead us into all truth (John 16: 13).
Even those Adventists who have acknowledged God's working through Ellen White were and
are slow to respond to the counsels given, and at times have even been openly rebellious thereto. Her
writings to the Church contain warning after warning of the negative effects of them failing to come
up to the standard to which God was calling them. Her writings are also replete with testimonies of
the blessedness that comes to those who overcome. Along with the weaknesses of those who were
truly seeking for a higher walk with God, there were (and are) the enemies of righteousness and God's
law who have infiltrated the Church in order to disrupt its progress and unity. This was nothing new.
Such is the express case with regard to Koresh.
In one of His parables (Matthew 13), Christ had pointed out that the enemy had sown tares
among the wheat. And such has been the history since His time. Even from the time of the beginning
of what became known as the Protestant Reformation (the early 1500s), a counter-reformation
was
launched
to undermine
the work of the reformers.
Among the primary
agents in the
counter-reformation
are the Roman Catholic priests known as Jesuits. Foremost in their work has
been the establishment of institutes of learning, the purposes of which are to counter the work of the
Reformation and propagate the false doctrines of their organization. They also infiltrate any group
necessary to further their aims. They don't even have to do this directly, as all they need to do is
influence those already part of a group. Of course, the Jesuits (and the Roman Catholic leadership in
general) were not the only ones who wished to disrupt the true work of the SDAs during Ellen White's
time, and in the present day.
Such was the case within the SDA Church at the time of Ellen White's death in 1915 - the
tares sown within the Church had managed to bring the people to what could be aptly described as a
deathlike sleep. The reformers, themselves, needed to be revived and reformed. Thus again, God, by
his grace, had to intercede to reclaim His people from the grasp of the enemy. Another step in the
restoration of "all things" was to be taken. This work could only be accomplished by God inspiring
another person to call His people to repentance and to a higher walk. Thus began the work of those
who later became known as

DAVIDIAN SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS

In 1929-1930, a Seventh Day Adventist Sabbath School teacher named Victor T. Houteff
claimed to have received a message for the Church by the Spirit of prophecy, and presented to a
small number of Church leaders a manuscript entitled The Shepherd's Rod. He said that the heart of
the message did not originate with him, but rather from a study which appeared in the 1928-9

24

Seventh Day Adventist Sabbath School Quarterly, entitled Isaiah, the Gospel Prophet. The heart of
the message in that Sabbath School Quarterly was not accepted by the Church leadership, even
though it originated from one of the highest and most well respected men in the Church.
Victor Houteff said God had given to him (was unfolding to him) the fullness of that message,
and was being led to call the Church to reform because the ministry of the Church were rejecting their
very own teachings. He pointed out to them that they were rejecting not only the interpretations of
previously unrevealed and unfulfilled prophecies, but also the calls for moral reform and a return to
basic Church practices and standards, and were teaching others to do likewise.
The heart of the message involved the purification of the Church as portrayed in Ezekiel
chapter 9, Isaiah chapters 62 & 65; Matthew 13:24-30, and elsewhere; the sealing and the work of
the 144,000 (Revelation chapter 7); the identity of the great multitude of Revelation 7:9; and the
pre-millennial kingdom on earth with its capital in Israel. The first point, the purification of the
Church, was the idea which the majority of the leadership of the SDAs stumbled over. They believed
that the "harvest," the final separation of the "wheat" from the "tares" in the Church would not
happen until the very end of probationary time for the world. Victor showed them that the Bible
clearly taught that the "harvest," the separation, was to occur before the Church made the last call of
mercy to the whole world, and that she would do such in a pure state, without sin or sinner among
them. He pointed out the fact that as the Bible shows the Church making a call for God's people to
come out of "Babylon" that they "not partake of her sins," or "receive not of her plagues"
(Revelation 18:4), that they must be called into a pure place - a pure Church.
He pointed out many Scriptures which referred to the latter-day evangelistic work of the pure
Church which would encompass all of the peoples and nations of the earth (Isaiah 2:2-4; 60: 1-22,
Micah 4: 1-4, etc.). He furthermore pointed out that the prophecy which the SDA church has
accepted as their commission since 1844 (i.e., Revelation 10: 11), reveals that they were only to go
to "many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings," not all of them. That is because, as he
showed them, they would have to go through a change in their theories, practices and habits which
were not in harmony with the Bible before they were ready to go into all of the world with the last
message of mercy. These changes were those which had been pointed out to them through the work
of Ellen White, and those which may be pointed out to them through any others God should send in
the spirit and power of Elijah the prophet to restore all things (Malachi 4:4-6). It was also presented
to them that because of their refusal to amend their ways, God would intervene in a supernatural way
to cleanse the Church (Ezekiel 9: 1-1 0; Isaiah 65: 11-16; 66: 15-19).
Victor also showed from the Bible that the 144,000 [sraelites who are depicted as being from
the twelve tribes of Israel (except the tribe of Dan - see Revelation 7:4-8) could be from almost any
nation. This is because the vast majority of the Israelites lost their distinctive racial identity when
they at various times were assimilated into the nations which conquered them, and were thus
scattered throughout much of the world (Ezekiel 21 :27). The first scattering happened around 721
B.C., when the ten tribes, where overturned by Assyria; the second time was when the two tribe
kingdom of Judah (along with many Levites) was subdued by Babylon around 538 B.C.; and the third
time was when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. by the Romans. This third
overturning was concurrent with the Jews who had become Christians going into all of the world to
spread the Gospel, and who also eventually lost much of their racial distinction.
At the time that Victor began teaching what was revealed to him concerning the 144,000,
the SDAs were teaching that the 144,000 would be the only living saints when Christ personally
returned; that they were not necessarily literal bloodline descendants of Israel (Jacob); and that there
was not to be any restoration of anyone to the land of Israel, nor the establishment of the promised
kingdom on earth until after the millennium (Revelation 20:4). He pointed out that the very fact
that the 144,000 are called "firstfruits" (Revelation 14:4), implies that there are also second fruits
(the fullness of the harvest). He also pointed out the covenant promises which related that after the
remnant of Israel are restored to the Abrahamic covenant in Christ, they will bring in the great
multitude of Revelation 7:9 from "all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues." (Isaiah 66:20;

25

Micah 4:2; Zechariah 2: 11, 8:22). This call will bring forth a great multitude of saints from all
peoples, and will prepare them for Christ's return (Ezekiel 36:22-38). This pre-millennial kingdom
on earth will exist for a relatively short period preceding Christ's visible return and the millennium
spent in heaven thereafter.
Then, after the people of the world witness the glory of the kingdom, and make their
individual choices of whether or not to be a part of the kingdom where God's laws are supreme, Christ
will personally return to take the saints to heaven with Him for 1000 years (the millennium), after
which time they, with Christ, will return to earth in fulfillment of the remaining prophecies
(Revelation 20: 1-1 0; Isaiah 65 :20; etc.) which precede the time of the earth being made new (Isaiah
65:17; Revelation 21:1; etc.), and the saints inheriting the earth with Christ in His everlasting
kingdom (Isaiah 65:21-25). This one point concerning the pre-millennial kingdom in Israel has as its
opponents not only the Catholics who teach that the establishment of the Papacy was the setting up
of the promised kingdom, but also those non-Catholics who preach of a secret rapture, and many of
those who embrace Zionism.
Those who believe in the secret rapture take texts like Revelation 3: 10, "Because thou hast
kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come
upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth," to mean that God will suddenly take them
from the earth before the "hour of temptation" (a time of tribulation). But in order to make such an
assumption they have to ignore many other Biblical statements regarding tribulation, such as, "In the
world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." John 16:33; and
"Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must
through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God."Acts 14:22.
What is even more telling of willingness of the preachers of the secret rapture to disregard
the plain Biblical teaching on this matter is Christ's own testimony on the matter of tribulation and
His second coming as recorded in Matthew 24:21-44. In those verses He states that "except those
days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be
shortened." (verse 22). Following that He warns against false Christs and false prophets (verses
23-26), and states that "For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west;
so shall also the coming of the Son of man be .... Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall
the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and
the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in
heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in
the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. " (verse 27, 29-30). There does not appear to be
anything secret in that coming. And as He says that at that coming He will "send his angels with a
great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end
of heaven to the other," (verse 31) there must be some saints ("his elect") on earth to be gathered
together. "
Moreover when John, in vision, asked his guide the identity of the great multitude who were
seen after the 144,000, he was told that, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, and
have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Revelation 7: 14. Those
who preach the secret rapture take the texts which read "Then shall two be in the field; the one shall
be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the
other left" (Matthew 24:40, 41), to mean that the saints are the ones who are "taken" to heaven,
while the wicked are left in the world to suffer through the tribulation.
Yet to come to that conclusion they have to wrest those statements out of their context.
The preceding verses read, "But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man
be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in
marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and knew not until the flood came, and took
them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." (verses 37-39)
Thus in view of their context, it is clear that those verses regarding those who are "taken"
refer to the wicked who are typified by the indifferent in Noah's day, and those who are "left" are the

26

great multitude of saints who are typified by Noah and his family and the great host of animals who
entered into the ark and whose lives were preserved. The "taken" ones were taken in destruction,
while those who were "left" were spared. Were this not true, then Christ's comments which follow
those admonitions would not make sense, to wit, "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your
Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief
would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh." (verses
42-44).
Why would we be counseled to "watch" in order to know when the One coming as a "thief"
. will be coming so that we may not suffer our house to be broken up? It is significant that the vast
majority of those who preach the secret rapture also teach a lawless, grace only Gospel which
disregards the binding obligations of the Sabbath commandment and its sanctifying blessings in Christ,
the Creator.
Yet a blessing is placed upon those who keep "the commandments of God, and the faith of
Jesus," "and have the testimony of Jesus Christ," which "is the spirit of prophecy." (Revelation
14:12; 12:17; 19:10) - even in a time of great tribulation. That is, "No weapon that is formed
against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt
condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the
LORD." Isaiah 54: 17. And also that, "the spirit [shall] be poured upon us from on high, and the
wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest. Then judgment shall dwell in
the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field. And the work of righteousness shall be
peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. And my people shall dwell in
a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places; When it shall hail, coming
down on the forest; and the city shall be low in a low place. Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters,
that send forth thither the feet of the ox and the ass" Isaiah 32:15-19 (See also Psalms 91).
It is no wonder, therefore, that those who preach the secret rapture, and a lawless grace
Gospel would not only sit idly by while the true Branch church was being defamed by a disparaging
association with Koresh, but would also, in effect, be saying "Aha" (Psalms 35:21, 40:15, 70:3;
Ezekiel 26:2; 36:2), by using the opportunity to misrepresent us in their pulpits and in the media.
The message Victor Houteff bore also brought to light that the current return of the Jews to
Israel by means of the efforts of the Zionists and the United Nations, though in the fulfillment of
certain Biblical prophecies (Zephaniah 2: 1, 2), was not the ultimate setting up of the promised
latter-day kingdom. He showed that the land of Israel was promised to the Jews (Israelites) who
accept Christ, not to those who reject His teachings. Among these revelations was the place which
the United States, England, and allies would have in opposing God's work of restoring His true people
to the land of promise, and of His humbling them for their own good. For further light on this matter
see < The World, Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow>>> & <War News Forecast>>>
As the Church leadership had rejected their own message as it was presented by one of their
own leadership, they were not about to accept it from a Sabbath School teacher, inspired or not.
Thus, when one or two leaders (who were, themselves, not in harmony with the Church's doctrines
and practices) superficially studied what Victor had presented them, and did not accept the message
(nor did they go to the source for explanations of what they did not understand), they made an open
warfare against anyone who accepted the message, or anyone who would even want to investigate the
matter for themselves. As a result, thousands of people were unjustly disfellowshipped, and continue
to be to this day, for investigating and sharing the message. Thus was formed, of necessity, a second
Seventh Day Adventist Church, at first called Shepherd's Rod SDA 's . In 1942 the name Davidian
Seventh Day Adventists was officially adopted. The additional name "Davidian" was expressive of the
teaching regarding the latter-day theocratic kingdom of Christ (Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15; Ezekiel 34:23,
24; 37:24, 25; Hosea 3:5; Amos 9:11-15).
In 1942, twelve years after Volume I of the "Shepherd's Rod" message was first published,
and the issues of the SDA ministry's gross departures from their foundational principles were raised, a

27

meeting took place between a prominent representative of the SDAs (M. L. Andreason, Secretary of
the General Conference of SDAs) and Victor Houteff. The written report of that meeting by this
high official of the Church clearly showed that the ministry of the SDAs was willing to, and actually
did, confederate and conspire among themselves to push aside the Davidians and their call for
reforms within their own Church (the SDA) rather than openly address the grave issues of the
departure from some of the most fundamental SDA doctrines and practices. He stated that though he
believed many of the issues of reform raised by Victor Houteff were either insignificant or untrue,
there were other serious issues raised which should not be addressed as such would not look good for
the SDA ministry. Therefore, he recommended not addressing any of the issues at all. Such has been
the case unto this day. This purposeful suppression of the valid testimony of the thousands of SDAs
who have joyfully accepted the reform message, and in turn encouraged others to study the message
for themselves (as encouraged in the foundational teachings of the SDAs), has led to the blackballing
of thousands of faithful, financially contributing SDA Church members over the past seven decades.
Under Victor Houteff's leadership, the Davidian organization grew and flourished in spite of
its inception during the Great Depression in America and the warfare against it by the leadership of
the SDAs, wherein it strictly confined its reform activities. He taught that it wasn't right to be
bringing people into the mother Church (the SDA) while the Church was in such a backslidden
condition, which is also what EGW said in her day. He saw that it was God's first priority to revive
and reform the SDA Church in order for her to truly be a place where her members (old and new)
could be ministered to by the Holy Ghost.
The Davidian reform movement which originated in Los Angeles, California in 1930
established its headquarters (known as Mt. Carmel Center) a few miles northwest of Waco, Texas in
1935. Mt. Carmel Center eventually grew to around 844 acres, with numerous well constructed,
attractive buildings, large peach orchards, and other crops which they sold to their neighbors. Though
the Davidians were considered a bit odd by the largely Baptist community of Waco because of their
keeping sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, the seventh day, as the Sabbath, their vegetarianism,
conservative dress, etc., they, generally, had a good reputation among their neighbors. When Victor
Houteff died in February of 1955, his funeral was one of the largest Waco has ever had. Though he
had no personal bank account, he had nearly unlimited credit, and was well respected in Waco.
On a practical basis, he taught that the Bible pointed out that it was the Church's duty to
care for those among her who were poor, sick, or elderly. Therefore, he followed the Biblical
command and instituted a second tithe fund for said purpose (Deuteronomy 26: 12-16). He also
instituted a school for teaching the youth general subjects, personal economy, and Biblical subjects
(morals, history, prophecy, music, etc.). Daily labor in farming and practical labors were also part of
the school's curriculum for both boys and girls. All of these things were a viable alternative to the
secular government sponsored social security, unemployment,
health insurance, and educational
systems which are subject to abuse by political influences that can be contrary to the principles of the
Gospel and its work. He also instituted a Church run bank which issued its own currency for use at Mt.
Carmel Center.
At first, the second tithe paid for much of the building projects, financial support for the
poor who attended the Church school, and other activities which promoted the growth and well being
of the Church. Once the headquarters at Mt. Carmel were well established, the second tithe fund grew
to around one half million dollars by 1962. That was among about 2700 members. This is significant
due to the fact that at Church meetings there was no plate passing. There would be a dish or other
container into which tithes and offerings may be placed, but there was no use of any means which
would tend to embarrass people into contributing money.
One of the prominent points of the message Victor Houteff bore was that the Church's
purification and her being brought into complete unity before Christ's personal, visible return would
be accomplished by God continuing to communicate with His people by means of the living Spirit of
prophecy. He also warned both the Davidians and the SDAs about how they were headed for loss and
disappointment
should they fail to appreciate and appropriate the blessings God was graciously

28

providing them through the ever living Spirit of prophecy - The testimony of Jesus (Revelation
19: 10).
After Victor's death in February, 1955, the leadership of the Davidian association was, to all
outward appearances, temporarily in the hands of its Executive Council headed by the self-proclaimed
vice president,
Florence Houteff (Victor's widow). According to the Davidian association's
fundamental teachings and their Constitution and Bylaws, they could do nothing except to continue
the work they had been doing, for without a prophet/president
with the gift of prophecy, no one
would know how to correctly run God's organization, or would be able to bring forth "meat in due
season" - that is, a present truth understandings of the Scriptures (2 Peter 1: 12).
According to the Church's governing laws, the work of the vice president is to assist the
president in his (or her) work. It was God's responsibility to raise up another prophet if He wanted to
continue to personally lead His people. The vice president cannot take the place of the president
unless he, or she, has the gift of prophecy. According to the Davidian Constitution and Bylaws, the
Executive Council does not have the authority to fill the office of president. The president must
have the active gift of prophecy in order to teach present truth and gather followers unto the Lord.
He or she cannot be elected by popular vote. The Davidians were under an obligation to earnestly
seek God for guidance. They did not follow this fundamental principle, and ended up in an
embarrassing situation in 1959-1960 when a false prophecy by Florence Houteff (who didn't even
claim to have the gift of prophecy) failed to happen. Her prediction concerned a supernatural
slaughter in the Adventist church, and the immediate setting up of the latter day kingdom in Israel.
This came about because a number of the Davidian leaders were taking Victor Houteff's
writings out of their context. They were acting as though some of Victor's statements which were
meant to apply to future situations and to another person, were meant for their present time with
Victor, himself, as the subject of the statements. This led to a situation where they were unwilling to
even listen to anyone else claiming to have received a message after Victor's death. This they did in
spite of the fact that Victor clearly taught that the Bible showed that God was going to continue to
speak to His people by means of the Spirit of prophecy until they were thoroughly purified (Isaiah
62: 1, 6). Thus again, as the leadership of God's people had betrayed their trust, it became necessary
for God to raise up another leader to continue the ongoing reformation. So, in the providence of
God, there came forth those who were later to be known as

BRANCH DAVIDIAN SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS

Shortly after the death of Victor Houteff in 1955, Ben L. Roden, an elder in the SDA Church
who had become a member of the Davidian Association, was impressed by God to bear a message to
Florence Houteff and the Davidian Executive Council, but was hesitant to do so. Ben stated that
because of his reluctance, one night while he was in bed the Lord picked him up by the pajama tops
and told him to write a letter to said people.
He said that after he had written the letter, he told the Lord, "These are not my words, I
cannot sign this." He said that the Lord then told him to sign it "The Branch." He was later shown
that this name was His (Jesus') new name. (Revelation 2:17, 3:12). The Bible proofs of this were also
later shown to him (Isaiah 11:1; Zechariah 3:9, 6:12), as were the testimonies from Ellen White and
Victor Houteff to the same effect. The change of Christ's name is reflective of the change of His
work as represented in the prophecies which reveal the new name.
Though it is written concerning Christ, the Messiah, "Neither is there salvation in any other:
for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts
4:12), there has been an ongoing controversy as to what really is or was His name. Today there are
many who are emphatic about exalting the name "Jesus," even though He was never known by that
name while He was on earth. The best scholars agree that His given name was "Yeshua" which was an
Aramaic form of the Hebrew "Yehoshua," (or a slight variation thereof), which transliterated into

29

Greek as "Iesous." It is from that Greek word, via Latin, that we get the name "Jesus." But when
"Yeshua" or "Yehoshua" is translated directly into English, we get "Joshua," which today is a
common English name, as "Jesus" is a common Spanish name meaning the same thing. There were
many Israelites before, during, and after Jesus' time who were also named "Yeshua" or fly ehoshua."
Therefore, it must be admitted that the main reason that the vast majority of the English
speaking world uses the name "Jesus," is due to traditions pass down from the Latin speaking Romans,
who in the early centuries of Christianity, separated themselves from everything Hebrew, or Jewish,
choosing instead the Greek version of His name, and eventually the Latin. Today there are many
who, wishing to experience a purer religion, are not only rejecting the pagan customs which crept
into the Church in its youth, but also any name other than what they believe to be His Hebrew or
Aramaic name.
In the midst of this controversy which has separated would-be, could-be brethren, and amid
the vast multitudes of isms which infests the so-called Christian Church, Christ, Himself, has provided
a solution. He has changed His name, as He predicted He would (Revelation 2:17, 3:12). The old
name had become so polluted with doctrines and traditions of men which detract from the truth of
the Savior's mission and work, that it became necessary to identify Him by a new name whereby all
things pertaining to Him could be restored without the curse brought upon the old name by the sins of
men who have exalted their private opinions above the word of God. It is written of the Messiah:
"Thus speaketh the LORD of hosts, saying, Behold the man whose name is The BRANCH;
and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD: Even he shall build
the temple of the LORD; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne; and he
shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both." Zechariah
6: 12, 13.
This text refers not to the time when Christ came to suffer and die for the sins of mankind,
nor the name He then bore, but rather to the time when He is to sit on His throne of glory during the
time of His priestly intercession, and to the name whereby He will then be known. While it is true
that when He ascended to heaven He sat at His Father's right hand as a priest, and was to from thence
receive a kingdom, He has never been commonly known by the name "The Branch."
In the letter Ben Roden wrote to Florence Houteff and the Davidian Executive Council he
pointed out the need for the leadership to be looking for further guidance from the Lord through a
manifestation of the Spirit of prophecy. Eventually, he wrote a total of seven letters to them, plus
numerous other studies repeatedly pointing out the need of a living inspired leader in the movement,
and other timely subjects. But instead of humbly admitting their need for direct leadership from
heaven by means of the Spirit of prophecy, Florence made an open warfare against Ben Roden and
what he was teaching about the erroneous path Florence and the other Davidian leaders were taking
in trying to carryon the work without a heavenly inspired leader. From 1955 though 1960 Ben
repeatedly pointed out Florence's presumption, and predicted the failure of her prophecy, and how
clinging to that false prophesy would lead to disillusionment, and to a fiasco.
Ben was also shown that the investigative judgement which had been going on in heaven had
passed from the review of the cases of the dead to those of the living. This change took place on
October 20, 1955 (the l Oth day of the 7th month, by Bible reckoning). For over one hundred years
the Church had been counseled through the gift of prophecy that they were going to be judged not
only by the words which Christ spoke when He was on earth (John 12:44-50), but also those which
the Holy Ghost has spoken in His name since then. Jesus said concerning the words He spoke:
"If any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the
world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth
him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of
myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I
should speak. And I know that His commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore,
even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John 12:47-50.
He also said,

30

"the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I
spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom
the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your
remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:24-26.
Jesus also spoke of the words which the Holy Spirit would speak after He left:
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the
Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth; for he shall not speak of himself; but
whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify
me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine:
therefore [because of this] said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you .. " John
16:12-15.
By these verses we see that the words which Jesus spoke were those given Him by the Father.
We also see that the "many things" which Jesus wanted to tell the early disciples, they were not able
to bear at that time, but when the Holy Spirit was come, those words would then be spoken. And
those words which were then to be spoken would also have been the words of the Father which were
given to Christ, and thus given to the Holy Spirit to give to us. Thus we will be judged by the words of
the Father, whether they were spoken by Christ and recorded in the Bible; or whether they were
things which were later revealed by the Holy Spirit and also recorded in the Bible; or whether they
were further revelations of the "many things," "things to come," "all truth" which were also to be
revealed by the Holy Spirit in the course of time.
Among the "many things" which the Holy Spirit was to show Christ's true disciples of "things
to come" are the meanings of the Bible prophecies which relate to times future from the time He
spoke those words. Therefore, Christ admonished His people to "watch," and to "try the spirits
whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (Matthew 24:42;
1 John 4:1). In conjunction with this He stated, "Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his
lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season?" (Matthew 24:45).
Likewise Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit, said, "be established in the present truth." 2 Peter 1:12.
Therefore, in every age God, by the Holy Spirit, has been revealing truth for the times then
present, and so He continues today, and so by such are men judged. It is written, "it is appointed unto
men once to die, but after this the judgment." Hebrews 9:27. Prior to the opening of the judgement
of the living, men were to be judged some time after they died, as stated in the foregoing text. But as
of October 20, 1955, those who professed faith in Christ are being judged while they are alive, in
preparation for Christ's second coming. The judgment consists not only of a review of the records of
the deeds done in the flesh (Romans 2:6), but also includes an intercession for those whose names
Christ pleads before the throne, as typified by the ceremonial Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16) the blotting out of both the record of the sin which has been kept in-the Sanctuary, and the effects of
the sin in the person. It involves both an imputation of Christ's righteousness in the records of the
Sanctuary, and an impartation of such by the Holy Spirit in the people (Ezekiel 36:25-27). Thus the
judgement is both of the living, and for the living - something to cleanse the Sanctuary, and
something to cleanse the people.
Those who have died prior to the Lord's return will receive their rewards when they come up
in one of the resurrections (1 Thessalonians 4: 16; or Revelation 20:5, 6), while those who remain
alive unto His coming will receive their rewards without tasting death, and thus must come up to a
higher standard while living. This higher standard may only be obtained by a fuller revelation of
truth.
On the Day of Atonement the people are commanded to "afflict" their souls. Though this
was usually accompanied by fasting from food, the idea of the afflicting they were to do unto their
souls was that of a browbeating, and speaking down of one's self - candidly examining themselves in
true humility. Such an examination opens the doors of the heart and mind whereby the Holy Spirit
may cleanse and restore the soul.
As what Ben Roden was doing was prophesied in Victor Houteffs writings and the Bible, it

31

was clear to those Davidians who honestly investigated what he was teaching that he was anointed to
be the next prophet/president
of the Church. It is stated in the Constitution
and By-Laws of the
Davidian association (written by Victor Houteff) that the name of the association, Davidian
Seventh-day Adventists, was provisional and would eventually be changed. This change would come
about when the reform work for the SDA Church was closing, and the work of the Davidians was
becoming "all-embracing to the Gospel." Thus the name Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist
came about, the only prophetic upshoot of the Davidian movement and, thus, the only one chosen
by God to continue to lead out in His work of restoring all things. Ben also wrote that there would
come a time when the names "Davidian" and "Seventh Day Adventists" would be dropped, leaving
the name of Christ's Church, The Branch, His own new name (Isaiah 62:2).
After the death of Victor Houteff, Florence Houteff and others who appeared to be members
of the Church's Executive Council, began to sell the land of Mt. Carmel Center. They did this in
order to bring about the fulfillment of Florence's prophecy. It was later discovered that none of
those who claimed to be members of Executive Councilor Trustees for the Association at the time of
Victor's death actually were such. This was because prior to that time all members of the Council and
all Trustees only held such positions for a one year term by specific appointment of the president,
Victor Houteff. The documents relating the purported appointment of Florence and the others who
eventually unlawfully attempted to disband the Association were not signed by Victor Houteff for
1954-5, as they had been each year previously.
Such was true for the document dated January 1, 1954 relating to the appointment of the
Executive Council members for the whole period of 1954, and for the document dated August 15,
1954 relating to the appointment of Trustees for the association for the period ending on August 15,
1955. After the death of the prophet/president, Victor T. Houteff, in February of 1955, according to
the Church's Constitution and Bylaws there could not have been any Executive Councilor Trustees
reappointed without a heaven-inspired person to fill the office of president and then fill the other
positions within the Church. Yet in spite of this, Florence and the others usurped the leadership and
used their unwarranted positions to suppress all others who made claims to inspiration, especially Ben
Roden.
Testimony and documentation also surfaced to the fact that Florence and the others who
were usurping the leadership knew that they lacked lawful authority for their actions after Victor
Houteff died (and even before such), and had agreed among themselves to be quiet about the situation.
It may also be noted that shortly after Victor Houteff's death in February, 1955, all of those people
who held membership cards in the Davidian association, except Ben and Lois Roden, had their
memberships expire, for most were issued for only one year at a time. Ben and Lois Roden were the
only Davidians whose membership cards were signed by Victor Houteff, with no expiration date on
them.
There were several outside forces which were also active in bringing about the so-called
dissolution of the Davidian Church and the sale of its property. Among those forces were some which
were also highly influential in the way things turned out with the Koresh situation. One of the more
prominent is the fact that the city of Waco was expanding its domain up to the edges of Mt. Carmel
Center. There were also residential developers who wanted the Mt. Carmel property. Mt. Carmel
Center was located on a hill which later became one of the nicer residential areas of Waco. There
were also influences from the Sunday keeping churches, and other groups in Waco who were generally
opposed to SDAs and DSDAs. In addition, there was the opposition from within the leadership of the
SDAs.
There is evidence to the fact that there was a conspiracy among certain leaders of Waco,
those developers, and others to wrongly influence Florence Houteff and those in league with her to
do what they did in unlawfully selling the property and dissolving the Association. Also, a number of
lawyers and others in the local legal community were also active in violating the rights of the
members of the Church. That is, it has been reported that many of the local lawyers wrongfully
agreed to take the stand that Florence and her associates had the right to sell the Church's property

32

in disregard of the other Church member's rights. More on this matter will be discussed later.
They eventually sold all of the original land, and by 1959 bought more land (941 acres) about
10 miles east of Waco (also known as Mt. Carmel Center, or New Mt. Carmel Center). In 1962, after
the debacle caused by Florence Houteff's false prophecy, she and others who were still falsely
claiming to be members of the Executive Council and Trustees of the association took unlawful
actions to dissolve the Church, and began to sell the 941 acres. They did this in spite of the protests
of many of the members, and in spite of the fact that the Church's governing laws did not provide a
means for its dissolution, and that all of the teachings of the Church and its laws-were designed for its
expansion. To do this they had to denounce Victor Houteff's writings and declare him a false
prophet. This they did with the help of some of the leadership of the SDAs.
During this time Ben Roden came forward in the courts and attempted to stop the sale of the
property and the dissolution of the Church. Due to Florence's actions, the court declared the Church
defunct and put its assets into the receivership of a lawyer named Tom Street, a Catholic. Though
Texas law allowed for the assets of a defunct local church which was part of a larger denomination to
be put into a receivership, and then pass those assets to another church of the same denomination,
such was not the case before the court. The statute which provided for such specifically excluded the
assets of a denomination (as distinguished from a local church) from being put into receivership in
such a manner. In other words, if a Baptist church was declared defunct, its assets would go to another
similar Baptist church. Such was not the case with the Davidian Church. It was a legally independent
denomination, it was not a local congregation of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. The SDAs to
this day denounce the Davidians as an "offshoot."
The real question before the court was whether or not a court could allow the dissolution of a
church (a denomination),
and the termination of a trust within said church, by the leaders of a
church, who may not even be the true leaders. Though those professed leaders had been active in the
work of building up the Church, they were not the motivating force for doing such - that is, it was
only through the leading of Victor Houteff and the message he bore that the whole thing came about.
For those so-called leaders to later denounce him as a false prophet and divide up the assets of the
Church among a minority, and to dissolve the association in protest from the general membership of
the Church which still honored the work and teachings of the originator of the Association was
neither the intention of the law, nor a moral response for the court. Yet this was done. Ben publicly
protested the court's action and its thinking that it had the right to enter into a church's business and
refund the tithes paid into the church for its upbuilding and for the welfare of its members. The court
was in effect saying that it knew better how to govern the Church than did God who had raised it up!
What is significant about this is that the Church was used as a proving ground to set
precedences whereby a court could ignore the First Amendment of the Constitution, that being the
Free Exercise clause. The First Amendment reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Though this amendment is
directed to "Congress," the Supreme Court has also noted that the same protection extends to
violation by a court. That is, if Congress can't violate the free exercise of an establishment of
religion, then neither can a judge. Yet this is exactly what happened when the court ordered the
second tithe to be refunded to those who were leaving the association. In other words, people give
money to God for the poor and needy, and the court steps in and takes it from God and gives it back
to the person who gave it.
Most of the Church's assets were divided up among Florence and her cohorts and some other
former members who joined in her conspiracy, and a significant portion thereof went to Tom Street.
Some other assets also went to the SDA Church. There was one asset, an interest in a uranium mine
in New Mexico, which has never been accounted for even though documentation of its existence was
in the record before the court. The money from the sale of the New Mt. Carmel property and
another nearly $172,000 which were in the second tithe trust account (which was a form of a mutual
insurance fund for the members of the Church) were divided among Florence and her supporters (a
total of about 72 people). They called their ill-gotten moneys "wage adjustments."

33

It was not until 1973 that Ben Roden was able to somewhat stop their actions. This involved
having to go to the Texas Supreme Court wherein it was ruled that a trust did exist within the Church
due to the second tithes paid by its members, and that those trust funds had been invested in the
Church's property, New Mt. Carmel. Yet the local Waco court did not properly apply this ruling, and
proceeded to continue to wrongfully dissolve the Church. At this time only about 77 acres of the 941
acres remained, with no other cash or property assets. This 77 acres on New Mt. Carmel is the place
where the events involving David Koresh eventually occurred. Ben actually had to use the second
tithe interests which he and others already had in the property to buy it back from the unlawful
control of Tom Street and the court.
The remaining Davidian Seventh Day Adventists who did not openly renounce Victor
Houteff's teachings, and who would not follow Ben Roden's leadership, and those who since the
breach in the Church have taken up the Davidian doctrines, exist today in about a half dozen
different major groups which are not in unity among themselves as to what Victor Houteff's message
really teaches (especially regarding the leadership of the Church). None of them have the gift of
prophecy among them, and, therefore, none of them have a president (though some do have
self-appointed vice presidents). They, until very recently, have strictly maintained their reform work
among SDAs, as was the policy under Victor Houteff. Most of their leaders bad mouth the teachings
of Ben Roden and Lois Roden, misrepresenting them to those of their groups who would seek to
investigate their teachings, much as is the policy of Seventh Day Adventists towards the Davidian
doctrine. They employ many of the same techniques against the Branch doctrines that they
condemn the SDAs and other denominations for using against them - such as prohibiting them from
speaking in church meetings, and even physically removing them from church property.
When the 1993 shootout involving the Koreshians became known, the Davidian groups came
forward to distance themselves from those who were being called "Branch Davidians," as the Seventh
Day Adventists were doing as well. Those Davidians also used the opportunity to speak out against
our teachings, and denigrate Ben and Lois Roden. Their publications concerning the history and
doctrines of the Branch were no less misrepresentative
of the facts than were those of the
Adventists. Coming from a people who boast of having a more honest attitude towards those with
whom they differ, their taking advantage of the situation with Koresh to bad mouth us is truly a
mystery.
Though the Davidians in Victor Houteff's day, and thereafter, existed in relative obscurity as
far as the general public was concerned (until recently), the same is not true of the Branch movement
under Ben and Lois Roden. In 1960, Ben Roden (who was Jewish) acquired landed immigrant status in
Israel, and began to establish a vegetarian village there (at first he actually was given three villages to
settle people in). The Branch was the first Christian church to receive such status in Israel. Ben also
established the Branch Organic Agricultural Association there. During that time, Israel, which
produced and exported a large quantity of fruits and vegetables, was a heavy user of harmful
pesticides. Our association was among the first to encourage organic gardening methods in Israel.
Also in 1960, under the leadership of Ben Roden, the Branch members began to partake of
the emblems of the Lord's Supper (unleavened bread and unfermented wine) at the Passover time, as
they were shown that this was done in the Apostolic Church. (1 Corinthians 5:8). That which was
repudiated by the so-called Catholic leaders in the fourth century A.D. was being recovered from the
darkness of human tradition. Though there were, and are, other individuals and groups who also
observe the Passover by partaking of the emblems of the Lord's Supper, the timing and the
significance of the occasion for those reformed Adventists marked a major step in the restitution of
all things for those "which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ"
(Revelation 12: 17). How this matter directly relates to the situation with Koresh and his followers
will be discussed later.
Shortly thereafter, Ben Roden reinstituted the partaking of the Lord's Supper at all of the
Biblical feast days (Passover, Pentecost, The Day of Atonement, the New Moons,and Sabbaths). He
showed that these times of refreshing were not shadowy types which had passed away, or which were

34

subject to change by the will of men. Concerning the Passover, Jesus said, "With desire I have desired
to eat this passover with you before I suffer: For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until
it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God." Luke 22:15,16. Though certain ordinances of the feasts have
changed since there has been a change in the law due to the change in the priesthood (Hebrews 7: 12),
the feasts themselves still remain as signs of events past, present, and future. The apostle Paul said,
"Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even
Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither
with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth." 1
Corinthians 5:7, 8. It would not have made any sense for the Catholic Church to think to change the
time (Daniel 7:25) of the keeping of the New Covenant Passover feast in the fourth century if it
been done away with at the cross. The perpetuity of the Sabbath and the New Moons are known from
Isaiah's testimony, "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before
me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from
one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before
me, saith the LORD." (Isaiah 66:22, 23). For an understanding of the importance of keeping the
New Moons today, see our publication, <She is a Tree of Life>>>.
In 1975-6 Ben pointed out the necessity of keeping the Biblical daily hours of prayer (the
times of intercession and refreshing, at the 3rd and 9th hours of the day). In 1978 he told the
General Conference of SDAs that they should start keeping the emblems of the Lord's Supper, at the
daily hours of prayer, at their headquarters. They didn't respond. In 1981, Lois Roden (Ben's wife)
instituted the Lord's Supper daily for all Branch members at the Biblical worship hours as in the
Apostolic Church (Acts 2:46).
It isn't only the matter of the proper time and manner of doing these things which holds the
worth of it, but rather God's work in Christ, through the Holy Ghost, at those times. A participation
in the time and acts without the direct effect of a true, working faith in God's methods in working out
the plan of salvation is not only of no value, but is injurious to the soul. "If truth cannot save, it
destroys" is the watchword of the reform movements. This is the key point in understanding what
happened to Koresh and those former members of the Branch DSDA.
The above mentioned doctrine and practice being restored through Ben and Lois is summed
up in words, "the Daily" - ha-tamid, in Hebrew (Daniel 8:11-13; 11:31; 12:11). In those texts the
word "sacrifice" has been supplied by the translators, and is not in the Hebrew text. In the days of the
earthly sanctuary these words referred to all that was involved in the continual intercession day by
day, and not just the sacrifice of the animals. In the antitype (the reality), its meaning is the same,
but with an added matter and significance. That is, "For the priesthood being changed, there is made
of necessity a change also of the law." (Hebrews 7:12). The change in "the Priesthood" is that from
the Levitical order to that "after the order of Melchizedek." (Psalms 110:4; Hebrews 5: 10. 6:20,
7:11, 17,21).
The major change in the law is that rather than the blood of animals being presented at the
earthly sanctuary, now there is a fountain open for sin and uncleanness (Zechariah 13:1) - the blood
of Christ - which is being pled in the heavenly Sanctuary for all who will avail themselves of it. And,
that this is being done at the very times pointed out in the symbolic service (the 3rd and 9th hours of
the day) everywhere on earth as those times occur in each place. While one can pray and receive
forgiveness at any time of the day or night, the actual work in the Sanctuary is only done at the
times of worship and intercession as pointed out in the symbolic service - the 3rd and 9th hours of
the day. For more on this subject, please see <The Daily, part 1>, and <The Daily, part 2>.
All of those churches who hold their worship services at 11:00 a.m., are actually following
the sun worship practice. Sun worshipers ate and worshiped at sunrise, noon, and sunset, whereas the
true Judeo-Christian practice has been to worship at the third and ninth hours of the day. The noon
hour (corresponding to 11:00 a.m. to 12 noon, depending on the time of the year) was considered
the high hour of sun worship, and became the hour of High Mass in the Catholic churches, and thus
the regular worship hour in most Protestant churches. Even the Seventh Day Adventists and

35

Davidians are not reformed in this matter.

How this step in the reformation became a significant factor in regard to those who ended up
following David Koresh is this. Along with the partaking of the memorial emblems of Christ's
sufferings and the promise of His return, there is to be a thorough examination of one's self, and a
confession of sin to those wronged and to the Lord. The various past and present messages had
emphasized the Bible doctrine of what would happen to those who failed to allow the Holy Spirit to
cleanse them though the blood of Christ by such an examination. (1 Corinthians 11:27-31). And that
1S why those particular people ended up with Koresh. They would not allow the Holy Spirit to humble
them, and they hardened their hearts to the point that they forsook most all of the fundamental
Biblical teachings of the Church in order to accept Koresh's teachings. Some of the specifics of this
will be presented later.
Within the many publications of Ellen White, Victor Houteff, Ben and Lois Roden there is
great light on the events of the last days of the present age, and the great glory yet to be revealed in
this dark world before Christ returns in all His glory. This is especially true of the events involved in
the setting up of God's everlasting kingdom and the trials of the saints leading to their eventual
liberation from the powers of oppression. Within the teachings of all of the various phases of the
Seventh Day Adventist movement is a specific focus on America's place in prophecy. Publishing
light on this matter for the general public was a particular feature of Ben's work.
Ben Roden was the prophet/president
of the Branch DSDA Church from shortly after the
death of Victor Houteff, until the fall of 1978, when he died. He was a true Christian gentleman, and
was well respected by those who knew him. Despite the longstanding controversy with the SDA
ministry, and the fact that Ben had been disfellowshipped from the SDA Church for having accepted
the Davidian reform teachings, some of the most prominent leaders of the SDAs in Texas officiated
at his funeral.
Before he was disfellowshipped, he, Lois (his wife), and others had raised the funds to build an
SDA Church in Odessa, Texas. He served as an elder therein. After he was disfellowshipped, the SDA
leadership attempted by court actions to keep him from attending services at the very church
building he had built. At the hearing, the court ruled that he could not be prohibited from peaceably
attending services there, and the judge said that if the SDA leaders were ever back in his court again
over this matter that he wouid "throw the book" at them. Ben is buried on the Mount of Olives in
Israel. This is the traditional burial place for the prophets of Israel. David Koresh is buried in an
unmarked grave somewhere in east Texas.
In the restoration of all things, it was in God's providence to also have women active in the
leadership of His work. In the beginning, God gave both Adam and Eve dominion over the earth
(Genesis 1:26, 28), and not dominion over each other - they were co-rulers. This co-dominion,
itself, needed to be fully restored. It was never God's design for men to rule over women, nor women
over men. Therefore, there came about

AN IMAGE OF EDEN
In 1977, a year before Ben Roden died, his wife, Lois, had a vision of the person of the Holy
Spirit in the symbol of a feminine "shimmering silvery Angel." For years Lois had been greatly
impressed with the reality that women were also literally in the image and likeness of God, and,
therefore, by divine right, held a position of co-dominion with men. She had been sharing this
concept with the Branch congregation since 1973 in the face of much resistance. She was about to
abandon the impressions which were upon her for the sake of unity in the Church when she was given
the vision. The vision confirmed to her what she had believed to be the truth of the matter, and
encouraged her to press forward with her work.
Because she had received this vision, and because it was evident that she was being given a

36

special understanding as to the importance of this lost truth, it was obvious to many of the Branch
believers that she had been anointed by God as a co-prophet/president
of the Church, and was
accepted as such by her husband and some other Branch leaders and members. In spite of this, there
were a number of people in the Church who were reluctant to accept a woman (and particularly Lois)
as leader, and this gave rise to many problems. It is of note that most of those who at first were so
adamantly set against the idea of Lois being in the leadership and her teaching on the femininity of
the Holy Spirit were those who ended up going with Koresh.
As she began to preach and publish what was being shown to her, more and more proofs from
the Scriptures, Jewish and Christian historical writings, as well as those from contemporary ministers,
rabbis, priests, scholars and others were being given to her. The message was going worldwide through
our own literature which was being printed at the headquarters, through newspapers throughout North
America, England, Australia, and the Philippines, and by radio and television. For Lois' studies on the
feminine aspect of the Godhead go to <Lois
1. Roden>>>, and for others on this subject by this
author go to <Latest
Studies>>>.
In 1979 she began publishing a magazine entitled Shekinah. This magazine explored the
issues of the feminine aspect of the Godhead and women in the ministry of the Church. Besides
containing her own commentary, the issues of Shekinah consisted of reprints of news articles and
excerpts from publications which addressed woman's place in the world of religion. Lois received
awards and commendations for the magazine from some very prominent groups and individuals in the
religious world.
We were very active in distributing our literature, attending the major meetings of the larger
Christian denominations
(Protestant, Catholic, etc.), of women's right organizations,
and others.
The popularity of her Shekinah magazine and other publications
was upsetting many of the
masculine dominated ministries, and others. This was especially true of the Baptists in Waco, and
could be seen by the fact that they later became foremost in circulating misinformation about the
BDSDA Church during the time of the 1993 events involving Koresh and the law enforcement
agencies.
Pride of opinion, especially in the realm of religion, has proven to be one of the most
destructive forces of life. Its not the differing opinions in and of themselves that are so harmful, but
rather the pride that can accompany them. The issue of the masculine/feminine
relationship reaches
to the very core of human existence and lifestyle. It touches every aspect of human thought.
Therefore, even amongst the most ardent reformers (such as the BDSDAs) whose profession is that
the truth taught in the Scriptures is to be accepted, no matter what the implications, there can, and
did arise

A POWER STRUGGLE AND A DISTORTION OF FACTS

Upon the death of Ben Roden, and in spite of the fact that Lois had already been given the
gift of prophecy (and was thereby anointed as a president of the Church), Ben and Lois' first born
son, George B. Roden, claimed that he was to be the new president because of his birthright. This
fact, in and of itself, holds no weight as to determining who is to be the president according to the
Church's Constitution and Bylaws. For the first couple of years after Lois began teaching of the
femininity of the Holy Spirit, George would not accept the facts of the matter that were presented to
him. He later generally accepted the teaching and Lois' inspiration in the matter but still discounted
her right to the leadership.
It is written, "For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother,
the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house." Micah
7:6. So it was with Lois.
George proceeded to set himself in opposition to his mother, contrary to the fact that his
father, Ben, had fully accepted Lois' inspiration and leadership, and had acknowledged such in writing

37

to the congregation. But, in spite of this, George began to bad mouth her in his own publications. He
also attempted to sell some things which belonged to the Church to further his own agenda. He
wanted to go to Israel to build a new temple, while Lois was interested in building the spiritual temple
- the pure Church. He gained a small following, and with their help was causing numerous problems
for Lois.
In 1979, Lois was forced to go to the courts for an injunction against George to prevent him
from claiming to be and acting as the president of the Church. Because of George's actions, it became
necessary for purposes of the law suit for Lois to poll the Branch members to determine if the church
members were acknowledging her leadership or George's. George tried to gather to himself position
seekers and others who would not humbly investigate Lois' message, or who had something personally
against her.
The court ruling was against George, and a permanent injunction was issued against him
<see Appendix 2>. In 1983, 84, and 85, Lois had to return to court to have George held under
contempt charges for violating that injunction. The ruling in this case, and Lois' continuing exercise
of her rights as president in this matter prove that Lois Roden was the only legally recognized
president of the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists until her death in November,
1986.
Actually, from 1979, George had been using the name "Branch Association" to identify his unique
faction. Furthermore, this shows that George Roden was never recognized as being the president of
the BDSDA Church while Lois was alive. Nor did he succeed her in said office after her death, as has
been repeatedly portrayed incorrectly by the news media and by other reporters and writers.

Lois published much of her distinct message under the name

LIVING WATERS
Because George felt that he had the right to the leadership, and, therefore, any money that
came into the Church's mail box, Lois was forced to change the mailing addresses on her literature.
She also decided to publish many of her writings under the name Living Waters (or Living Waters
Branch). Even though she published under these names, she never changed the name of the Church
itself. All of the contention with George made Lois' work of proclaiming the truth of the femininity
of the Holy Spirit, and the restoration of the family image on earth as it is in heaven much more
difficult. Though she regularly displayed the divine grace which was guiding her, she would also admit
that she was a weak and erring mortal.
Besides the hostility she was facing from within her own congregation and family, and that of
the self-satisfied religious world, there was another force working against her which brought her much
anxiety. That is, flattery. As her work of restoring women to their rightful place of equality with
men was meeting with positive feedback, some people began to idolize her. This brought her many
personal trials. Not only was she faced with the temptation of self-exaltation (pride), but had to deal
with those (mostly women, but even some men) who were attempting to avoid using their own minds
and consciences by substituting Lois' opinion's in all things for their own personal relationship with
the Holy Spirit. She would express to me her concern for those who were doing this, and the danger
that they were in. It was under these circumstances that there came about what can appropriately be
described as

THE ENTERING OF A DRAGON

It was during the time of Lois' struggle with George that Vernon Howell came to New Mount
Cannel Center. The first time was in 1981. The dispute over the presidency between George and Lois
was not a light matter, and it caused significant confusion, tension, and division within the Branch
congregation. Certain of the male members (and even some female members) of the Church were

38

offended because a woman (Lois) was the new leader. This was really odd because they were
professing to be members of a church which was founded on the inspired work of a woman, Ellen G.
White, and whose writings were regularly read and quoted. It was as though those people weren't
offended by the leadership of a dead woman, but a living one was a different matter.
Lois had been telling people not to support George, for not only did he not have the gift of
prophecy, he was not even a converted Christian. But he still received support from the disaffected
ones, or from others who were as unconverted as he was. At this same time, none of the other Roden
children (five, besides George) were active in the church work, as they had been previously. All of
this played quite heavily on Lois. In Ecclesiastes 7:7 it is written, "Surely oppression maketh a wise
man mad." This also applies to women.
But besides all of these things, there was another great pressure which was bearing upon Lois.
That is, rebellion within her own ranks. There is a well established rule within our Church (as within
practically all other organizations) that if someone feels that he or she has something which they
wish to teach or publish under the appearance of such having the endorsement of the Church, they
must first have it approved by the leadership - in our case, the president. In spite of this gift of
government (1 Corinthians 12:28) which we as Branch members are called to observe, the man who
did the printing for the Church at the headquarters, Clive Doyle (who later became one of Vernon's
first followers), printed his own study on the church's printing presses, then distributed it to some of
the people whose names were on the church's mailing list, and asked for financial support for his
work, all without permission.
Clive's actions made it appear that there were two different "storehouses" (see Malachi
3: 10-12). Lois reproved him for this, and he seemingly repented. She was most patient and forgiving
with people. Both before this time, as well as after, Clive had an underlying root of bitterness towards
Lois which manifested itself in confrontations
with her as to how and what to print, and in
badmouthing her to other members, including me. When Lois began to publish her message, Clive
refused to print her literature unless ordered to do so by Ben Roden. Some years later Clive came out
of the burning building on April 19, 1993, and has been acting as the spokesman for Koresh's
remaining followers since then.
Besides Clive, the press secretary for the Church, Perry Jones (who died in the initial
shootout of the 1993 incident), likewise felt that he, himself, was somewhat of a special leader, and
also better able to know how to run things than was Lois. These two men were among the first to
accept the teachings of Vernon Howell, and the first to give at least one of their daughters to be his
wives or concubines. Perry's daughter, Rachel, became his only legal wife in 1984, at age 14. Two
years later, Vernon announced that the Lord had told him to give his "seed" to another minor-aged
girl, and that her father had given him his permission for such. Later, Clive's youngest daughter,
Sheri, gave birth to two of Vernon's many children. She and her children died in the 1993 fire, as did
Rachel and her children.
Vernon took advantage of the problems which Perry, Clive, and George were causing (and the
fact that Lois was allowing George to live on Mt. Carmel) by playing on Clive's and Perry's personal
grievances against Lois and George to win their affections. He started telling people that the reason
that they had not yet overcome as they wanted to, and why there were so many obstacles which
seemed to be arising all the time, was because of George's presence and Lois' reluctance to remove
him. He told people that the only way to solve the problem was to accept his message and leadership.
At this same time, Lois knew of the sins of those who professed to be following her
leadership, and considered them as bad or worse than George's, for they were Christians, and he was
not. They had a measure of the Holy Spirit, and George did not. Therefore, Lois saw that if everyone
who was causing problems should be made to leave Mt. Carmel, there would be no one left, for no one
was as perfect as they could have been. It was her prayer and work to bring all, including herself, to
true repentance from all sin, in the mercy and graciousness of God. George was treated as badly by
those who professed to know better, as they claim they were treated by him.
It was somewhat easy for Vernon to win the affections of some of the professed followers of

39

Lois Roden by blaming her for everything. The devil, through Vernon, was playing Vernon (and his
followers, Clive, Perry, etc.,) against George (and his supporters), and George against Vernon, with
Lois, and her supporters (such as me) in the middle. There were even a few people who believed Lois'
teachings on the femininity of the Holy Spirit, etc., and who were passing out her literature, yet at
the same time were supporting George or promoting themselves. She and the heaven-ordained
message which she was bearing were, as it were, being crucified between two thieves (usurpers of her
crown), George and Vernon, as was Christ. Actually, it was Christ in His prophetic word brought by
the Holy Ghost through Lois which was being crucified afresh by his own professed followers (See
Hebrews 6:4-8).
Despite all of this, Lois was still publishing what the Lord was showing her, and was getting
worldwide support for the truth of the femininity of the Holy Spirit and woman's true place in the
Church ministry, that of equality. In February/March, 1983, Lois won an Award of Excellence from
the Religion in Media Angel Awards (the Academy Awards of religious broadcasting) for her
Shekinah magazine. Also around this time she won another award from the Dove Foundation, an
international Christian organization. One month later our Administration building was burnt down.
The Administration building contained our printing department, was the storage place of all
of the previously printed Branch literature, and contained our large mailing list of members and
subscribers to our literature. The fire started in the corner of the printing room where all of the
in-print literature was stored. There was one eyewitness who said that he saw Vernon start the fire.
Vernon later said that he started the fire because the Lord had told him that Lois had to stop
publishing her literature. Some of Vernon's own words regarding the matter of his aggression against
Lois Roden's leadership and publishing, and of her rejection of his claims are presented in
<Appendix
3>.
During the weeks prior to the fire, I saw Vernon repeatedly going into the small building
which contained the pump for the well which supplied water for Mt. Carmel, and messing with that
pump. At the time of the fire, the water pump was not working, and, thus, the fire departments
which came to put out the fire didn't have any water available to them. During the fire someone
stated that they thought that an animal had chewed through some electrical wires in the ceiling of the
building and that that is what caused the fire. And though there was no actual investigation of the
matter, the numerous fire departments which were there all went away with that story, and that story
was reported in the press.
What is notable about this is that there were no electrical wires in that portion of the building
where the fire started. There is a prevailing wind which blows across Mt. Carmel Center, and that
morning the wind was quite strong, blowing from the right side of the Administration building towards
the left as one faces the front of the building. This was the same direction the wind was blowing on
April 19, 1993 when Koresh's compound burnt - which, incidentally, was built on the same place
were the Administration building had been situated. In order for the fire to have traveled from where
the electrical wires actually were to the extreme rear right side corner of the building where the fire
actually started (where all of our in-print literature was kept), it would have had to go against that
strong wind. But it didn't. The fire started in the very corner of the rear right hand side of the
building. I was an eyewitness to this (being one of the very first on the scene).
After that fire, anyone who came in contact with Howell/Koresh had little or no access to
the writings of Ben and Lois Roden (which should have been consulted to check and see if Vernon's
message was in harmony with the testimony thus far revealed. They were also told by Vernon that
they could not prove his message by theirs (Ben and Lois'). If we pointed out that parts of his
message were not in harmony with the former prophets, he would say to us that the former prophets
were "idols" of "silver" and "gold" to us.
By taking away the proofs (the Branch writings, etc.) which would have exposed his
deception, he was free to promote his lies to those with whom he was newly coming in contact with,
with little danger of being exposed in his deceptions. One of his biggest lies was that his message was
an extension of what the former prophets had taught. Those within the Church who were not settled

40

on the principle of comparing new thoughts with those previously revealed were easily led to
disregard some of our most fundamental doctrines (such as those against polygamy).
Most of those who became Vernon's "mighty men" were men who were not at all familiar
with the nature and truths of the original movement because they came in under his tutorage (or,
better, his dictatorship). People such as Marc Breault (whose testimony about what the Branch is all
about has been so heavily relied upon) and David Thibadeau know nothing, firsthand, of what the
movement really teaches, or what it is about. Both of these men have written (or co-written) books
about their experiences with Howell/Koresh. Their (and now much of the world's) conception of the
nature of the movement is a product of Vernon's amalgamation of our true doctrines and his twisted
reason mgs.
For example, Seventh Day Adventists, have, for military purposes, been classified as
noncombatants since the time of the civil war - meaning that they would only serve in the military
as medics, cooks, or the like, without carrying weapons. Their general reasoning being that there
were Christians on both sides of the conflict. The Davidian Seventh Day Adventists went one step
further, classifying themselves as conscientious objectors refusing to serve in the military, also
because there may be Christians on the other side (being forced to go to war by their governments),
and because they could not practice their religious beliefs within the military lifestyle. It is also a
specific Davidian teaching that Christians should not engage themselves in promoting items which
kill people (i.e., selling guns, etc.). Yet Vernon's followers abandoned those principles by engaging in
the buying and selling of guns, and by their militaristic actions. They even encouraged military
actions against themselves by said practices. So it is written, "all they that take the sword shall perish
with the sword" Matthew 26:52.
Initially, in 1984, there were only about 15 members of the Church (and their minor-aged
children) who followed Vernon. In 1993, out of his 140, or so, followers only around 35 had been
former members (or children of former members) of the Church or were loosely associated with it
under Ben and/or Lois Roden. The difficult thing for Lois and the rest of the members who didn't
follow Vernon was that among those few former members who did end up with him were most of the
members of the Executive Council of the Church, and some of their family members.
Under our governing laws, the members of the Executive Council, without the president who
appointed them to said offices, do not hold any legal authority to affect the Church or its property,
but merely act as advisors to that president (such as the President of the United States' Cabinet).
Because of the problem that arose with Florence Houteff, Ben Roden had amended our Constitution
and By-Laws, to specifically prohibit the Executive Council from filling any vacancies in the
Church's offices, and especially the office of president. That Koresh's followers later totally
disregarded our governing laws in these matters will be addressed later.
What is perhaps the most significant departure from our basic teachings was Vernon's action
at this time (1983-4) in naming his group "Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists."
After September, 1955, when Ben Roden was told by the Lord that the new name of the Church was
to be "The Branch," he declared that
"the name of the church was changed several times to teach Present
Truth up to that time. But now that the new name of Jesus has come, the name of
God's true church is changed to Messiah's new name and it will never be changed again
since she (the church) is called by the Son of God's new name; The Branch ... " Seven
Letters to Florence Houteff, 1978 Reprint, page 115. (emphasis added)
He also declared that,

Association,
Seventh-day

"The names Davidian

and Seventh-day
Adventist
which this
The Branch, inherits from the parent denomination,
Davidian
Adventist, is provisional and only for the duration of its work within the

41

parent
denominations,
Davidian
Seventh-day
Adventists
and
Adventists."
The Leviticus of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists,
Supplement, page 5.

Seventh-day
The Branch

So, at the very beginning of Vernon's work it was apparent that he had no regard for the
established teachings of the true Church for he acted contrary thereto by using the name which he
did. It was also evident that those who had been with the Church for a number of years, and should
have known better, had more regard for the smoke and mirrors Vernon was presenting than they did
for the Church's teachings and laws. It wasn't that Vernon was presenting them with unquestionable
expositions of the Scriptures and Church writings, because he wasn't. It was that he was playing on
their own individual selfish interests and their willingness to make someone else their minds and
consciences - for that person to be a god to them. But those people were certainly not alone in doing
this. It is done daily throughout the world by many people, religious or irreligious.
Prior to 1984, when Vernon and his followers left Mt. Carmel Center under the name
"Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists," Vernon was constantly antagonizing George by
demonstrations of his physical strength and his claim that Lois and George had to die if they would
not accept his message. In late 1983, Vernon was teaching that there was going to be a destruction by
fire. He kept quoting Bible passages which referred to a judgment by fire. As he had burned down our
administration/publishing
building around six months before, George and others were honestly
concerned about something of that sort happening again. But the way that they dealt with Vernon's
predictions only made things worse. After the administration building fire, and because of Vernon's
1983-84 teaching that there was going to be some kind of deadly situation at Mt. Carmel (which time
has proved to be his self-fulfilled prophecy), George started wearing a gun around Mt. Carmel Center.
Rather than attempting to patiently discuss the Bible passages Vernon was quoting in their
already understood context, and trying to help those who were getting lured into Vernon's intricately
woven web, George and others went on the offensive, letting their unconverted natures overrule
reason. This ended up giving Vernon more fuel for his unholy fire (so to speak). As Vernon was
keeping things much more low-keyed that he did later, it was easy to make himself out to be a
persecuted messenger and to close his cloak of deception around those who were giving up their
minds and wills to him. Thus, with things getting more and more confusing it was difficult for those
who had a true interest in Lois' work (and the Church, in general) to know what to do when

THE REBELS HAD THE ADVANTAGE

In late 1983, with so many different things going wrong (the fire, Lois' children, those who
were exalting themselves and misusing Church property, those who had personal things against Lois,
and those who were joining George and Vernon against her, etc.), Lois was also beginning to believe
what Vernon was saying. She was beginning to feel that the problem was with her, and that she had to
accept his message as the remedy. He was coming at her like a locomotive from hell. He was
incessantly using many obscure Bible texts which had not been commented on previously (and even
ones which had been) to convince her and others of his new message (sic). He took advantage of
every opportunity he could to bombard her with his convoluted logic. He would not let up, but would
come at her day and night, hour after hour, attempting to wear her out. It is written of Lucifer,
"Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret they can hide from thee." Ezekiel 28:3. The
devil was able to use Vernon's talents and knowledge of the Bible (large parts of which he had
committed to memory), along with his own vast knowledge of the Bible and history, to present his
masterpiece of deception to attempt to "deceive the very elect" (Matthew 24:24).
All of these things were most perplexing to Lois and we who were helping her in her
heaven-appointed
work. Suddenly the contention between George and Vernon was eclipsing our
mission to share with others the light of heaven which we had been receiving, and many were

42

becoming disheartened. The devil was using his age-old divide and conquer technique, and it was
fulfilling his diabolic scheme. Even though Lois, and other of her most loyal supporters, were
temporarily overcome (worn out - Daniel 7:25) by Satan's representative, Vernon Howell, the Lord
nevertheless declares of her and them, "The Lord rebuke thee, 0 Satan; even the Lord that hath
chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee. Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" (Zechariah 3 :2).
Around Passover time in 1984, certain persons who were, seemingly, supportive of Lois'
ministry, and yet sympathetic with George, and others who were following George openly, and others
who were uncomm itted to either George or Lois but were also opposed to Vernon, and still others
who simply saw an opportunity to promote their own agenda, voted for George to be a sort of "civil
ruler" of the Church, contrary to the Church's Constitution and By-Laws. Even though George was
still under the court order prohibiting him from acting as president of the Church, his new fictitious
role of "civil ruler" gave him the impetus to act out his unbalanced mind.
Just like Eve's children who blamed her for their own sins which they committed of their own
free wills, many who were with Lois previously and who had, for one reason or another, been looking
at some character flaw in her as an excuse for their own deficiencies, encouraged George to obtain a
court order to remove Vernon and anyone who he felt was a sympathizer of Vernon's from Mt.
Carmel. This order also included anyone who was opposed to George and was still with Lois and the
true Church, such as me. My name appeared on that court order as being Vernon's "agent." Nothing
could have been further from the truth. I later received a letter from George in which he admitted
that he was mistaken about me being Vernon's "agent." I never gave any tithes to anyone other than
Lois, and was authorized by her to receive others' tithes to pass on to her until her death.
George took this court action not as president of the Church, but as a Trustee of the Church's
property (Mt. Carmel Center). George was one of the three original trustees of Mt. Carmel Center,
along with Ben and Lois. He used this position in his pleading before the court to obtain the court
order. As Vernon had burned down the Administration
building which contained the active
membership list a year before this, Lois' hands were tied by circumstances. This mailing list, which
contained thousands of names, many of which were groups, was the primary means that Lois would
have had in contacting the Church's members to inform them of what was happening and to attempt
to ward off George's and Vernon's attempts to steal her right to the presidency of the Church.
Though many of the names on the mailing list were recovered from backup sources, there was
another problem which Lois had in defending herself. That is, because of Vernon and George's actions
much of the tithe moneys stopped coming to Lois. Aside from those who were supporting Vernon
and George, others were indecisive about who to support and were withholding their tithes and
offerings. So even though she had the addresses of many of the members, she did not have the
financial means to contact them effectively.
There was a Field Letter sent out in late 1983 inviting people to come to Mt. Carmel and
hear Vernon's message. It was well known among Lois' followers that the signature which appeared
on that letter, which was purported to be Lois's signature, was a forgery (either by Perry Jones, or
Vernon, himself). It wasn't even a close forgery. Such was Vernon's method of using Lois to promote
himself.
In spite of the fact that George was already under the court order to cease from acting as the
Church's president, he ignored this order and used these circumstances to try again to have himself
voted in as president (which failed, again). Vernon, of course, used George's court order removing
him from the property to portray himself as a martyr and to gain further sympathy from his
followers and others. Later, after Lois' death, he used this circumstance to gain sympathy from a jury
and the public by further portraying himself and his followers as being persecuted ones, exiled from
their homes.
Even though Lois was greatly handicapped by the uncertainty of many of those who had
formerly supported her work, and by George and those with him, Vernon did not even try to
challenge, by vote or any legal means, Lois' right to the presidency of the Church while she was
alive, for he knew that even though the membership was in disarray, she still could gain enough

43

support to ward off his attempt to dethrone her. George's court order was appropriate in one sense
because Vernon and his followers were a separate group under a different name from that of the true
Church, and were acting and teaching contrary to the Church's teaching on the matter of what the
name of the Church should be, and in other regards. Vernon was also attempting to use other things
owned by the Church which were under Lois' control, and which he was not authorized to use. Some
of Vernon's own words regarding this are presented in <Appendix
3>
Everything that Vernon was doing had a cloak of darkness about it. This fact seemed to make
no difference to those few former Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists who left the true
movement to join Vernon's new and separate movement under the name Davidian Branch Davidian
Seventh Day Adventists. This was symbolically revealed in an incident which occurred about a year
after Vernon and his followers moved off of Mt. Carmel Center and ended up in Palestine, Texas at
what was to be the headquarters of his new, separate, and distinct movement and association for the
next few years. That is, he dug a large hole in the ground with a backhoe, and after it had filled up
with rain, he baptized his followers in that muddy hole.
After they left Mt. Carmel in the spring of 1984, and before they ended up in Palestine,
Vernon and his followers were around the Waco area for a while, where they got into trouble with a
woman who was trying to help them by giving them a place to stay and some work to do. The work
they did was so bad, the woman threw them out.
Vernon and his followers were hired by the woman to re-roof a house. The correct way to lay
the tar paper on a roof is to lay it parallel to the horizontal edge of the roof. Vernon had such a
control over the thinking of his followers that they followed his directions and laid it vertically in
spite of their own protests. I was driving by one day and saw them doing it. What is of note here is
that one person in particular, Stan Silvia, has stated publicly that he raised serious objections to
Vernon about laying the paper vertically, but eventually gave in to Vernon's demands because he
believed that Vernon was God's man. That same man was among those whose wives later became
Vernon's wives (or concubines) and bore him children. Stan was also on television after the 1993
incident boasting of how proud he was for having given in to Vernon's demand regarding the tar
paper, while denying that his wife had any children by Vernon, in spite of the fact that tests proved
differently.
At that same Passover time (spring time) in 1984, another man, Charles Pace, who had
previously also claimed to have a special message for the Branch members, publicly proclaimed that
he knew that George was to be the next prophet (president) and proceeded to give him around
$14,000. He gave him that money in order to set up a health center on Mt. Carmel. He did this even
though he professed to be following Lois' leadership, and knew that George had no legal right to do
anything like setting up a health center on Mt. Carmel, and that Lois had told everyone not to give
financial support to George. Not only did George use this money to further oppress Lois and those
who supported her message and work, but it also gave him the boost to his ego which pushed him
over the edge. Shortly after he was given this money, he damaged some of Charles' property and
threw him off Mt. Carmel. Charles was also one of the people who encouraged George to be the "civil
ruler" of Mt. Carmel Center, and may have been the one who was foremost in promoting the idea.
Prior to that time, Charles Pace was so adamant in proclaiming that he, himself, had a special
message from the Lord (which also was not in harmony with the testimony thus far revealed) that
Lois had to ban him from speaking at any meetings of the congregations in his area. At the 1984
Passover meetings he proclaimed (in writing and orally) that he and his sister were special
representatives
and representations
of Christ and the Holy Ghost. Later, after he was married a
second time, he changed that view, saying that it was he and his new wife who were that special
representation.
At that same time there was also another brother and sister from Canada (which is where
Charles was from) who were also teaching that they were the same sort of special representation.
That is, Phillip and Ruth Ottman. Both they and their mother, Gladys, ended up with Howell/Koresh.
Ruth is the one that came out of the burning building on April 19, 1993, and had to be held by a law

44

officer from going back into the building. She spent some time in jail after the incident, and was
thereafter sent back to Canada, where her brother and mother were.
Charles is now attempting to pass himself off as Lois' successor, even though almost all of
the members or former members of the Church reject his teachings. A couple of years after the 1993
incident, he moved to Waco and turned one of the two remaining structures on the Church's
property, our dairy barn, into a place where he holds his meetings. A few years after Lois' death, he
named his faction "The Living Waters Branch of Righteousness."
After I informed one of his
supporters, Tom Caldwell, that there was no provision in the Church's teachings or laws for the
original Church to be so named, and that it was actually contrary to our teachings on the matter, he
dropped that name, and took up the name, "The Branch, The Congregation of The Lord (YHVH)
Our Righteousness." Charles later joined hands with the Koreshians in their attempt to obtain title to
the Church's property.
Due to all of the oppression directed towards Lois and her message, those who were with Lois
and who had rejected Vernon's teachings were in dismay. The devil was using George, Vernon,
Charles, and the others who were running around claiming that they had received special light from
the Lord and that they were now the anointed Ieader(s), to cast a flood of impure waters (people
polluted with impure doctrines) out of his mouth in order to drown the true Church. (See Rev 12: 15,
16; Matthew 24:24).
Ellen White warned of what has been termed the "Lucifer movement." She said, "I ask our
people to study the 28th chapter of Ezekiel. The representation here made, while it refers primarily
to Lucifer, the fallen angel, has yet a broader significance. Not one being, but a general movement, is
described, and one that we shall witness. A faithful study of this chapter should lead those who are
seeking for truth to walk in all the light God has given to His people, lest they be deceived by the
deceptions of these last days." Special Testimonies, Series B, No. 17, p. 30.
Victor Houteff and Ben Roden also repeatedly warned against those who privately interpret
the Scriptures and what would happen to them and to those who accept their vain theories. But they
also showed that the Bible was replete with God's promises to separate the tares from the wheat in
the Church and that in the last days the Church would be pure and clean. Yet in spite of all the
counsel, pride of opinion and self sufficiency were able to have their lethal effect.
Those who ended up with Koresh, as with all of us, were warned against false prophets "whose
coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth,
that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness."
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12.
Such it was with those who ended up with Koresh, or with the other promoters of private
theories. The false prophets surrounding the true message and movement were simply drawing away
those who refused to relinquish their cherished sins and idols. This is the same situation which existed
at the time when Elijah was on top of Mt. Carmel. The people were held in confusion and idolatry by
the false prophets
This seems to be a general principle. Wherever God's true prophet is working,
there will be a variety of false prophets attempting to lure away the believers. Those lures will come
in the most subtil forms to play upon peoples pet idols. It has also been pointed out to us that during
the Judgment of the Living our deeds are to be published.
Rather than rebuilding the printing building which was destroyed in the Passover 1983 fire to
continue publishing her message, Lois used commercial publishers. She was also so concerned about
the antagonism against her publishing work that she hired a typist in Waco whose identity and
whereabouts she would not reveal to anyone other than her daughter who would drive her there, and
me. Shortly before she died she used the money that was coming in to print large quantities of her
literature (around $25,000 worth), for she knew what Vernon had in mind. After the 1983 fire,
Vernon repeatedly stated that he was told by the Lord that he should tell Lois not to publish her
literature any more <see Appendix 3>. Lois stopped publishing for a while in 1984, as it was the

45

seventh (sabbatical) year of her ministry, and in late 1985 began publishing again. She had received
much light on the situation we had gone though during that sabbatical year, and new light on another
precious hidden truth, and was trying to show Vernon and those with him the deception into which
they had fallen.
All the truths which had been revealed within the Advent movement up to that time (1985)
had been easy to prove to anyone who had a true desire to know what the Bible teaches. But the Bible
itself reveals that there are some matters which are "hard to be uttered, seeing [we] are dull of
hearing." (Hebrews 5: 11). There are also things which are only for those who overcome, as it is
written, "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that
overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, .... " (Revelation 2: 17). Such it is with that which
Lois began to teach in 1985.
The Bible also declares that the Lord says
"I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went
forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to
pass. Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy
brow brass; I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass
I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven
image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. Thou hast heard, see all this;
and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden
things, and thou didst not know them. They are created now. and not from the
beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say,
Behold, I knew them. Yea, thou heard est not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that
time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very
treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb."Isaiah 48:3-8
Such is the case with that which Lois began teaching in late 1985 - it is for those who have
overcome, or are in process of doing so. As such, those things are contained in her publications,
bound up in a study entitled <The
Bride of Christ>>>. Other studies on the subject are also
available in our <s'<Latest Studies>>>.

THE TRUTH IS IN THE COURT RECORDS

During this same time (1985, and onwards) George was in the courts again, trying to
represent the Church in a tax case which arose from a change in the tax status of New Mount Carmel
Center. At the same time he was trying to retrieve the old Mt. Carmel property which had been
unlawfully taken from the Church in the days of Florence Houteff. He was failing in these endeavors
because he felt that he could do things all on his own. Of course, this was a cause of great frustration
for George, which, among other things, later landed him in jail on contempt of court charges.
In 1983-4, when the character and work of Vernon and those who supported him were
surfacing, George published some manuscripts which he entitled The Rough Winds. These were harsh
denunciations of what he thought was happening. In these writings his language was so full of cursing
that many of those who had been with him up until then left him. The holy influence which he had
received from being with his father and mother in the work was wearing off, and George didn't know
that he, himself, was not converted.
The sad situation of children of upright men and women going in a different direction has
been repeated over and over again in this sin-cursed world. Those who profit from the lessons learned
by these things will fully realize and know for themselves why it is that God has promised that
"affliction shall not rise up the second time" (Nahum 1:9). This will be because those who have
learned the lessons of life will not let it rise up in their hearts and minds, and they will be the only

46

ones around.
Because George was again attempting to act as the president of the Church in 1985, Lois had
to bring him up on contempt of court charges again. At the court, Lois presented an affidavit in
which she swore that she was the "president" of the "Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists"
<see Appendix 4>. This was filed on March 28, 1985. This was about a year and one half after
Vernon Howell claimed that he had succeeded her as president, and that she had lost said office, and
had passed her "crown"on to him.
Around that same time George had filed a suit in federal court claiming that his right to the
presidency of the Church had been violated. The case was filed in the United States District Court,
Western District of Texas, Waco Division, as Civil Action No. W-85-CA-99. The case was against
Lois, Vernon, a Waco judge, an attorney, Florence Houteff (then known as Florence Eakin), Charles
Pace, and others.. Lois had set forth her own defense separate from that of Vernon and those former
Branch members who were then following his leadership rather than hers. Vernon's defense was not
only separate from Lois', but was made from the premise that he was actually the president of a
congregation
other than the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. That is, the "Davidian
Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists." <see Appendix 1>
Lois had filed her sworn statement regarding being the president of the BDSDA on March 28,
1985, and about 2 112 months later (on June 10, 1985 - about a year and one half after he started his
new group under the new name) Howell filed his sworn statement wherein he stated that he is the
President of "The Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist Association." (emphasis added).
This.clearly shows that there were two separate associations (actually three, counting George's
faction), with different leaders, using different names, at the same time.
It was during the 1984 Passover season that Vernon announced to everyone attending
meetings at Mt. Carmel Center that his new movement was called the "Davidian Branch Davidian
Seventh Day Adventists" (DBDSDA). In late 1983 he had added the extra word, "Davidian," in front
of the name of the true and original Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists to identify his
distinctive group. He gave untenable theological reasonings for the use of the additional name.
I won't try to explain in this presentation the reasons he gave for using the additional name
"Davidian" in front of our name, except to say that the founder of the Davidian Seventh Day
Adventist
reform movement (the predecessor
to the Branch movement),
Victor T. Houteff
(V.T.H.), had similar initials to those of Vernon Wayne Howell (V.W.H.) a fact of which Howell
took a twisted advantage. When he later set up his camp in Palestine, Texas in 1985, and used that
place as his headquarters for the next couple of years, he was publishing literature with the initials of
his new association, "DBDSDA" on it.
What is also notable about that document which Vernon filed in 1985 is that he names the
specific members of his distinct association at that time. He names "Clive Doyle, Edna Doyle,
Raymond Friesen, Tilly Friesen, Perry Jones, Mary Bell Jones, Bob Kendrick, Janet Kendrick, and
Catherine Matteson", as being "members" of his new association. On April 24, 1994, those same
"members" of "The Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist Association," (except for
Perry Jones and Raymond Friesen , who died during the 1993 incident) unlawfully attempted to
appoint themselves as "Trustees of the Branch Davidian Seventh day Adventists," contrary to the
Church's Constitution and Bylaws, which states that only the president of the association can
appoint its officers. In the recent court case instituted by Koresh's remaining followers to gain title
to the Church's property, the jury (11 to 1) explicitly rejected their claim of being the "Trustees" of
the Church. That judgement against their claim was rendered in Case No. 96-1152-3 on October 6,
2000. More on this trial later.
George's 1985 federal case was dismissed for want of George properly stating a cause of
action. An unusual thing about that case is that the case file is no longer in the Waco area federal
court where the case was heard. It was moved to the historical records division of the federal district
court in Fort Worth, Texas. They say that this was done to preserve those records, because they
have historical significance. What is significant about this is that few people know about the fact that

47

Vernon was actually representing himself as being the leader of a group distinct from that of Lois or
George, and that his own sworn testimony in that case proves it. But, despite this, that fact was
known to some prominent people in Waco. The fact that Howell was using that different name for
his distinct faction, and was also the leader of that separate association was brought forth in written
pleadings in at least two other court cases in Waco prior to the 1993 incident.
Stranger still is that even though these records are a part of the federal court records, the fact
of HowelllKoresh claiming to be the leader of a group distinct from the BDSDA has never been made
public by any government agency, nor news agency, despite the fact that they have been notified of
this by various people. Even the so-called researchers and experts who have written on the history of
Howell/Koresh and the BDSDA Church have missed, ignored, or suppressed this matter. For some,
this has been intentional, for they have intended on portraying the BDSDA Church in as bad of a
light as possible. Why the fact that Howell was actually the leader of a different association under a
different name has been suppressed be will further explained later on in this testimony (though by
now the reasons should be somewhat obvious).
It was not until nearly one year after Lois' death that Howell filed a document <Appendix
5> in the county records office of McLennan County, Texas, wherein he claimed to be president
of the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. That was around four years after he claimed that he
was the new president of the Church, replacing Lois. Howell never attempted to challenge Lois' right
to the office of president of the Church by vote, nor by legal proceedings, before her death, for he
knew she had the support of the vast majority of the Church and that his doctrines and practices
could not stand the light of day.
From mid-1985 until Lois' death in November of 1986, there was no one living on Mt.
Carmel Center who was really with Lois. Since 1984 George had been forcibly controlling who could
come on Mt. Carmel. A few people came and went, but the only ones that George would allow on the
property were those who were in sympathy with him, or those whom Lois would insist on being
allowed to come there (such as me). As George's own character was deteriorating, so was that of his
few remaining followers.
Upon our returning to Mt. Carmel from a missionary trip to Canada about five weeks prior to
her death in November of 1986, Lois expressed to me that she really did not want to go back there
because she felt like a prisoner there because of George. She didn't want to enforce the contempt
order which was already in effect against George, for, in one sense, he was able to help kept Vernon
off of Mt. Carmel. Besides this, she knew that she was sick, and might not be around too much
longer, and she did not know who would be her successor as president of the Church. Along with this
is the fact that she was using the little money which was coming in to publish her literature, and
couldn't afford the costs of going to court again.
I was living in Waco at this time, and had to call Lois, who would have to tell George that I
was coming before I could come to Mt. Carmel to meet with her. Most of the time we met at my
place or in a park. Only one other person in the area was fellowshipping with us at this time. Most of
Lois' followers had been scared away by all the commotion which George was causing by wearing a
gun (which was prompted by provocations from Vernon), and by Vernon's pronouncements
of a
deadly situation which was to occur at Mt. Carmel.
Lois spent the remaining year of her life visiting members, and publishing what was being
revealed to her. She was receiving great light on the feminine aspect of the Godhead. Lois didn't
attempt to overturn George's court order which removed her followers along with Vernon and his
followers from Mt. Carmel due to the lack of financial support caused by all of the confusion, and due
to another prominent reason. She knew that Vernon was going to try to gain control of the property
and the Church's name and good reputation. She and George were in agreement on that one matter.
During this time she would also attend Vernon's meetings in Palestine, Texas in an attempt to show
him and his followers the errors of their ways. She didn't do this by directly attacking Vernon's
claims, but rather by presenting them with the new light she was receiving. Vernon had been claiming
that she had lost her "crown" (her inspiration), and thus the presidency of the Church, and she was

48

showing them that he was wrong by presenting them with the proof of God's continuing work
through her. After her death, Vernon would try to use the fact that she would come to some of his
meetings as proof that she was a follower of his. Yet his own testimony related herein <Appendix
3> and other facts prove otherwise.
Despite all the overwhelming
evidence in the first few years as to the truly deceptive
character of Vernon and his work, and all of the new evidence which Lois had been presenting to
them, those who were with Vernon were too proud to admit that they had been deceived, and were
convinced that they could not turn back (as were the fallen angels who had sided with Lucifer in his
rebellion in heaven). This was because they did not take what Vernon was teaching to God in honest,
heartfelt prayer in order to know whether or not it was true. They felt that they were able to
understand what was truth all on their own. Therefore, when they saw that they might be in error
they could not repent of their foolishness because they alone were to blame for their deception.
They loved their own supposed ability for discerning spiritual things more than direct
inspiration from God. Vernon took them step by step away from the strong moral foundation which
they had learned of (or could have learned of) in the SDA, DSDA, and BDSDA movements, and led
them into the dark world of his self-deceived heart where they learned to entertain the evil spirits of
lies, deceit, perversion, and intemperance. This should be a warning to all to seek heavenly wisdom
first (Proverbs 4:7-9; chap. 8; and Luke 7:35), and to put all teachings of men (or women) to the
Bible test of the "law and the testimony" (Isaiah 8:20).

SMITETHESHEPHERD,ANDTHESHEEP~LBESCATTERED
After Lois' death in November of 1986, I notified many of those who were still faithful to
her work and to that of her husband, Ben, and obtained from them the authority to represent their
interests in the Church in the probate and other courts in order to maintain the Church and its assets
until we could come together and seek the Lord for light on the situation. I knew that there was going
to be a contention over the property. One of George's brothers, Benjamin Roden II, was already
selling off Church property; George, as usual, wanted to control things; and almost everyone knew
that Vernon had intentions of trying to seize Mt. Carmel and use the good name of the true Church
to promote his nefarious designs. In the application for Temporary Administrator
of Lois' estate
which I filed in Probate Court in January, 1987 (more than six years before the fatal February 28,
1993 raid) I identified Vernon's and George's movements as being separate and distinct from the true
Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. I stated therein, "The Branch Association, President
George B. Roden, and The Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh-Day Adventist Assn., President
Vernon Howell, are not affiliated with the Association which Lois I. Roden, deceased, was President."
(emphasis added) <Appendix
6>
When we were in probate court regarding Lois' estate, there were four people in three
separate positions involved in the contention for Administrator
of Lois' estate: George, Benjamin
Roden II and Samuel Roden (George's brothers), and me. The judge would not believe my testimony
about how both George and Benjamin II were hostile towards their mother's work and the Church
itself. Neither would he take into consideration that much of Lois' estate consisted of things which
she held in trust for the Church. The judge ruled in favor of Benjamin II and Samuel, and advised me
that if we wanted to make sure the Church retains its assets, r would have to get a lawyer and file
another type of suit. He said it was not difficult to do.
Right away I contacted a lawyer who had represented Lois before and was familiar with the
situation. He was so frustrated with having to deal with George over the past few years (he also was
named in the federal law suit George had filed in 1985) that he said that he would not represent us
anymore, but instead referred me to his partner, who said he would help us. I gave the other lawyer all
of the pertinent information, and he was ready to proceed. All that he needed was some money to
get started. Here is where a real problem arose.

49

I had said to those in the Church whom I was representing that it would be good if some of
them could also come to the probate hearing, to help out in that time of crisis. The only person who
was free to come was Teresa R. Moore, one of the two women named in Lois' will, along with the
New York group, to lead out in republishing the Branch literature. She decided that since she was
appointed to this work of republishing the message, that made her a prophet. After the probate
hearing she went back to New York, discouraged the people she had contact with from trying to
retain Mt. Carmel or any of the other Church property, and set up her own association under the
name, Lords of Sabbaoth, Our Righteous Branches, with her as prophet/president (though she offers
no proof from the Bible or the Church writings for such things). Thus, I was left there all alone with
any potential support withdrawn, and Mt. Carmel was left in the hands of George, and then,
eventually, Vernon. Benjamin II and Samuel sold a lot of the Church's property which Lois was
holding in trust, as though it was Lois' personal property.
Around the time of Lois' death in November of 1986, George's
mental state was
deteriorating significantly. About one month before Lois died, George had dug up the casket of a
female Church member who had died about twenty years before and was buried in the Church's
cemetery. He told me that he was attempting to resurrect her as practice for resurrecting his mother
when she dies. He had also done it as a challenge to Vernon. I told the sheriffs about the body, but
after they investigated the matter they told me that George said that he was just moving the
cemetery and that his backhoe broke down so he could not put her back in the ground. The casket
remained unburied for around one year. I even related this situation to the Probate Court in the
document which I filed therein <see Appendix 6>. All of these things set up a situation which
allowed for

THE RETURN OF THE DRAGON WITH IDS ARMY

During the months following the probate hearing George was hard up for money and had
leased some of the 15 plus houses which were on Mt. Carmel to some people who claimed to be
wanting to open a halfway house. None of those people were Church members. During that summer
(1987), George had met Amo Paul Bishop, who became his wife (sic) by "contract" for a few months.
George's real wife had left him in 1984 (or 1985) and moved to Israel. Amo says she left George
after a few months because she wasn't pleased with George's lack of desire to bed her. Amo claims to
have had a daughter by George, and is also claiming that the girl is some sort of promised child. There
is a connection between Amo and those people to whom George had rented the houses to, but I am
not fully aware of what it is.
Amo now also claims to be the new leader of the Church. Though Amo seems to be zealous in
her attempts to expose what she sees as governmental abuses, her passing herself off as a member of
the Church (and the leader thereof), has been nothing but a source of embarrassment for the true
Church members and a source of confusion for those people who are really seeking the truth. She was
never baptized into the Church, nor granted fellowship by anyone who had the authority to do so.
She rejects much of the teachings of Ellen White, and thus those who followed after her.
Late in that same summer (1987), I received a strange phone call. A young man, who
wouldn't identify himself, said that he had been asked to perform a "contract" on me (i.e., murder
me) for the fee of $1500.00, but that he had turned it down. He said he would tell me the story if I
would pay him $300.00. I told him I wasn't that curious about what he had to say and that the Lord
would protect me from such harm. He kept insisting that I should know the story, and that he would
only tell me for the $300.00. It seemed as if he was hard up for money (or really wanted to tell his
story), so I offered him $25.00, and we agreed to meet.
He was trying to convince me that it was Ben Roden II (George's brother) who sought to hire
him, but I kept getting the impression that it was Vernon who had put him up to this deception to
scare me out of the area. When the man could not describe Ben II very well, I asked him if Vernon

50

Howell had put him up to this. He got very nervous and agitated and said, "No, it wasn't him," as
though he knew who I was talking about. After talking with him some more, I again raised the notion
that it was Vernon who had actually prompted him to contact me. Again he got very agitated when I
insisted that he was hiding the real truth. When I described some of the ways that I had seen Vernon
operate, he seemed to laugh as though he was aware of what I was saying.
At first I was not intimidated by what the man had told me. But a short time later I was
deeply impressed to leave Waco immediately, so I did. That was in late October, 1987. In early
November, 1987, about two weeks after I left Waco, Vernon and seven of his followers made what
the authorities described as a military style assault upon George in order to seize Mt. Carmel. As the
story goes, Vernon and his followers said that they were just trying to get some photographs of the
dead body which George had dug up. They claimed that the District Attorney had requested that they
get the pictures in order to prosecute George. The deceptive thing about this is the fact that the
sheriffs were well aware that George had dug up the body, for they had investigated the matter nearly
nine months before that time, when I reported it to them. If there were additional reports about the
body still being out of the ground, the sheriffs could have investigated the matter again, and could
have brought the matter before a judge, without Howell and his followers ever being directly involved.
It was reported that during their assault Vernon and his followers had more ammunition than
"a Vietnam patrol." They had hid out in the ruins of the Administration
building which Vernon
burned down in 1983 until the morning when they were discovered and a shootout started between
them and George. It reportedly went on for around 45 minutes before the sheriffs arrived. The
sheriffs were conveniently met by Perry Jones (Vernon's father-in-law) outside of Mt. Carmel who
said that they were just trying to take some pictures of the deceased woman. Vernon and those with
him were put in jail, awaiting their trial on attempted murder charges. Vernon was bailed out while the
others remained in jail. One of the officers who testified at the trial said that it appeared to him that
Vernon and his followers were attempting to use the sheriffs in order to gain control of Mt. Carmel
Center. That was a very astute observation.
After the November 1987 raid by Vernon and his followers, it was reported that there were
found in some of the houses pornography and some chemical which could be used to make the drug
methamphetamine
(speed). These were probably not known to George, but were there through the
actions of those operating what they called a halfway house. It was due to the presence of those
chemicals in 1987 that Ann Richards, Governor of Texas, was led to believe that there were drugs on
Mt. Carmel in 1993, prompting her to bring in the army tanks, etc. against Koresh (Vernon Howell
changed his name to David Koresh around 1989). She could have only legally brought in the military
equipment if there was a major drug connection, but the only supposed drug connection which was
cited was the supposed presence of those chemicals at a time when Howell/Koresh was not even on
the property.
While waiting for the trial, George was getting frustrated because he was losing in all of his
attempts to correct the matter of the tax status change regarding Mt. Carmel. He presented the court
with a document wherein he called the federal judge a "*!!* tyrant" and said that God may inflict
some judges with "aids and herpes" (George had been previously diagnosed with Turret's Syndrome, a
condition where one is known to use foul language uncontrollably and other unpleasant symptoms).
This was not the first such incident of this nature, and he had been warned by the court not to
continue doing so. He was put in jail under contempt of court charges because of his language on
March 21, 1988. The very next day, Perry Jones and a number of Vernon's other followers moved
from their headquarters in Palestine, Texas to Mt. Carmel, and ran off the few others that were
there. Several months earlier they had dropped the name "Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day
Adventists" and began to unlawfully assume the name "Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists."
Now that they had usurped our name, they were going for our property.
At the trial, Vernon's group came with their children and gained much sympathy from the
jury. Poor George was handicapped by his deteriorating mental state and the attending circumstances
(Vernon and his followers were all conservatively dressed while George was brought directly from the

51

jail so his appearance was less than appealing). Vernon's attorney brought the casket which George
had dug up into court to influence the jury (the woman had been reburied). When they put George on
the stand, they asked him his name, and he responded by saying that he was the "son of God." It
should be noted that Vernon had been claiming the same thing for quite a while, and George was just
saying the same thing. But the jurors never knew this fact. The fact that George was aping Vernon's
claims was one of the reasons he took Amo as a second wife - because Vernon had taken additional
wives (or more correctly, concubines). When the jury heard George and saw the casket, they, in
effect, said, "We don't know about Howell and his followers, but we know that he (George) is crazy,"
and they acquitted Vernon's followers. There was a mistrial declared for Vernon, himself, and the
charges were later dropped. All of their guns were given back to them.
A few days before the shootout with George, and right about the time I left Waco, Vernon
and his followers filed a document in the McLennan County records office (on October 30, 1987)
asserting that he was president of the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. Of course he didn't
notify any of the valid Church members of that document. With me out of the way, there was no
Church member in Waco who could testify at the trial in 1988 as to what was going on. So not only
did the jury and the general public not know that Howell's leadership was of a completely different
nature than that of Victor Houteff, and that of Ben and Lois Roden, who were well respected in the
Waco community, but that the characters of the former Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists,
such as Perry Jones, Clive Doyle, etc., were also being changed (or, more accurately, being revealed).
Since certain members of Howell's group had been members of the Church's Executive
Council under Lois Roden and their names appeared on the original 1979 court order against George,
all they had to do was to tell people that they were still members of the Executive Council of the
original Church and enforce the original court order against George. They did this in spite of the fact
that they left Lois' leadership in 1983-1984 to follow Vernon, and, therefore, left their positions on
her Executive Council and never again followed her leadership, nor paid tithes to her. The president,
alone, appoints the members of the Council, and they must remain faithful to the president in order
to retain their positions.
After being released from jail after serving many months for what he said about the judges,
and with the contempt of court charges stemming from the 1979 case against him, George was forced
to flee from the Waco area, or go back to jail. George went to Odessa, Texas, where the family had
some property. A little while later, a man named Dale Adair who had been with the Church some
twenty years before, but who had left it and had become quite a drunk, also ended up in Odessa,
staying with George. That man was the brother of one Don Adair, who is the leader of one of the
current Davidian off-shoots. As the reports go, the man had a gun in his hand and approached George
with it. George wrestled it out of his hand and shot him dead. The reason reported for Dale Adair's
attempted murder of George was that he was a "Nazi," and George was a "Jew." George wanted to
plead self defense, but the court said that he was not mentally fit to stand trial, and was placed in a
mental facility. After having escaped from there, being brought back, and later escaping from
another one to which he was later transferred, and, again, being brought back (both times seeking to
go to Israel, or elsewhere to seek political asylum), George died in the second facility in December of
1998, reportedly of a heart attack.
A few months before Lois' death in 1986 she had printed up around $25,000 dollars worth of
her Shekinah magazines and other literature. Most of that literature was on Mt. Carmel Center when
Howell's followers unlawfully moved onto the property on March 23, 1988. An eye witness states
that Howell had a large bonfire and it looked as though he was burning the many boxes of Lois'
literature. Remember that he had already burned down our publishing house in early 1983 in order to
stop Lois from publishing her message.

THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED

52

If, in the 1970's, during Ben Roden's time, one had told Perry or Clive that one of them
would die and the other one would be seriously burned because of their blindly following a
religiously-garbed pervert they would have just laughed at him. And, if you also told them that both
of them would give at least one of their daughters to be that man's wives (or concubines), and then
those daughters and the children they would have by him would die in a horrible fire, they may have
even been provoked to anger over the base insinuations. This just goes to show that people can think
they know themselves better than they really do.
Just for the record, and to show that these men were well warned of the results of their
following Vernon, I present the following. Clive Doyle's ex-father-in-law, Athen Slauson, who was
himself on the outskirts of the movement under Lois Roden, had a dream which he presented to
people at Mt. Carmel during the 1984 Passover season. He said that his dream revealed that Vernon
Howell was going to take all the girls and women (married or not) as his own wives. No one who was
with Vernon at that time believed him, especially not Perry or Clive, for there did not seem to them
to be anything of that sort in what they were then hearing from Vernon.
Here, again, is a lesson on the evil of self-sufficiency. Athen Slauson, as a professed follower
of Branch teachings, was not living up to what he was intellectually embracing, and as a result his
words found little weight with many to whom they were spoken. And what is even stranger, he later
even discounted his own words on the matter.
That is, being Clive's ex-father-in-law, he was grandfather to Clive's daughters, one of whom
was reported to be one of Howell's wives (or concubines), and who perished in the fiery end of the
fifty one day siege. After 1985, when reports were starting to surface about Howell's polygamist
activities, Athen's daughter, Debbie (the girls' mother), who was divorced from Clive but still living
in Waco with her new husband, was keeping a remote eye on the two girls to see if there was any
signs of truth to the reports. Both she and her father, Athen, became so convinced that nothing was
happening (because of Howell's demands for absolute secrecy among his followers) that in 1992 when
I asked Athen if he thought that what he related about his dream was true, he said that he didn't think
that anything was wrong (because of Debbie's reports). Yet time has shown that his dream was true.
One might correctly
say that these people, like all too many others, were self-deceived,
self-hypnotized. No one is deceived or hypnotized except by their own consent.
There is no doubt among those who have witnessed firsthand Koresh's teaching style, and
were not swayed by it, that he was very good at using mind control techniques, and at putting on an
act. Charismatic has too positive of a connotation to describe his teaching - entrancing, enigmatic,
and deceptively diabolical are better. Nonetheless, those people who ended up with Koresh and lost
their lives, and/or the lives of their families and friends, did so because they voluntarily gave up their
minds and wills to him. When they saw evidences that he might be wrong, they were too proud to
allow themselves to admit it. In the crisis hours of the last day of the standoff, only a few people
managed to decide to come out, and that was only after the fire started.
HowelllKoresh had led them step by step away from the doctrines and practices they had
formerly accepted (at least in theory). As stated earlier, strict vegetarianism
is one of the
fundamental
standards for BDSDA membership. Yet many of those who had been practicing
vegetarianism
under the leadership of Ben and Lois Roden returned to eating meat under
HowelllKoresh's
leadership. But this matter is minor in comparison with what they had to accept
regarding his numerous wives (sic), and his later teaching that those who were married had to separate
so that all the women could be his. The same is true in regard to the use of alcohol which he
encouraged his followers to use to drown their sorrows of being separated from the spouses.
So, with the foregoing in mind, I'il skip other facts which constitute the overwhelming
weight of evidence that people had from 1984 and on, that Vernon's movement was, in principle and
practice, diametrically opposed to the true, original Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, and
will progress to the point of the February 28, 1993 shootout with the BA TF agents, and how I made

53

ATTEMPTS TO INFORM THE GENERAL PUBLIC

When I left the Waco area in late 1987, I went to Southern California, where I had grown up.
On Sunday evening, February 28, 1993, upon hearing the news reports of the tragic incident in Waco
I made numerous attempts to reach the television networks and newspapers to tell them some of the
important information regarding David Koresh and his followers and his relationship (and lack
thereof) to the true Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. Much of what I tried to convey to all
concerned is contained in this testimony.
It being Sunday evening, most of the news agencies were closed and just had their voice mail
machines on, or someone there just took notes to pass on to someone else the next day. I was able to
arrange for one interview with KCAL TV, channel 9, in Los Angeles, California,
and was
subsequently interviewed by their reporter, Michelle Gelle, the next day (Monday March 1, 1993) for
about forty-five minutes. Of this interview less than half a minute of the total interview was aired
twice on that same Monday evening. Most of the important information which I related to them was
not made public, though they were decent enough to state that my "branch" of the Church did not
believe in the use of weapons or polygamy, as did Koresh and his followers.
I was also interviewed that same Monday by a reporter from The Los Angeles Times
newspaper. Though my telephone interview with their reporter was nearly one hour long and I
related to the reporter the same basic facts about the different name of Koresh's (Howell's)
movement since 1983 and about how many of Koresh's doctrines and practices were diametrically
opposed to those of the true Church, only a few sentences of mine were used in the multi-paged
articles that appeared over the next weeks. They totally ignored the facts that I presented them of
the schism which occurred in 1983-84, of the good name that the true Branch movement has (and
the public recognition of the same), and the vast differences between Koresh and us.
The same thing happened after a one hour telephone interview with Newsweek magazine the
next day, which was published the following week. Their article even made it appear that I was one of
Koresh's ex-followers. Other news sources that I contacted weren't interested in the facts of what I
had to say (even if I was a firsthand witness to the history of the matter) but were all caught up in the
popular distorted portrayals which were being sculptured for the public by influences which are not
easy to speak about.
One of the most important of these influences which is directly relevant and material to the
discussion at hand and which must be mentioned is the powerful influence which the Seventh Day
Adventist
Church had, and continues to have, in what can be proved to be their gross
misrepresentation
of the one, and only, Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists. Even though our
legal name is Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, much of the world refers to the Church
(whatever they may believe it to be) as "Branch Davidians" because of the SDA's improper influence
on the governmental and news agencies.
The SDAs had trademarked their name a few years before the 1993 incident. Even though
the reform movements have lawfully had the name "Seventh Day Adventists" as a part of their
names since the 1930's (for the Davidians), and 1955 (for the Branch), and we had the lawful right
to use the name, the media, etc., bowed to pressure from the SDAs and wouldn't use our proper name.
The SDAs were certainly interested in protecting their name from a disparaging association with
Koresh, but they did not care to afford the true Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists the same
respect.
There is another aspect in this matter. Though the SDAs would want to protect their name
from an association with Koresh, others (non-SDA) would not want it known that we are in essence
Seventh Day Adventists because of the respect that the name has some circles. Because of our stand
on matters such as temperance, healthy living, and moral purity, along with the sincerity and
steadfastness with which we hold the binding obligations of the law of God, and particularly the
Sabbath, many of those who disagree with our doctrines still hold us in respect. It would be easier for

54

those who wished that we were not around to have us labeled by an obscure name such as "Branch
Davidian," which in and of itself doesn't portray our true roots, and can be used to create almost any
sort of image one may choose.
Nonetheless, were it not for some in the ministry of the SDA Church willfully withholding
some very important information from their churches and the public press, and their own publication
of what can be proved to be self-serving, grossly biased press releases, printed articles, lectures, and at
least one book, the true character of the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists would not have
been so blackened by a disparaging association with Koresh. Following are my

ATTEMPTS TO INFORM THE LEADERSIDP OF

THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH
On the morning of March 1, 1993, the day after the tragic shootout in Waco, Texas, besides
contacting the public news media, I contacted three people in the SDA Church who were in the
communication
departments
of their respective Conferences
(the Southeastern
California, the
Pacific Union, and the General Conferences). I spent around one half an hour on the phone with
each of these people. Each one of them expressed their surprise at what was going on with Koresh,
for they had never known the Davidians, or the Branches, to have done or taught the things that
Koresh had been practicing or teaching.
I told these three, as I had almost everyone else that I had contacted, that David Koresh had
formed a separate movement from the Branch, adding the name "Davidian" in front of our legal
name. This most important information was ignored and suppressed by them, and it didn't appear in
any of their many published articles. Almost everything which the SDA ministry released to the
public was a distortion of the truth, both to the past events they spoke of, and to our basic doctrines.
This has been their main method of suppressing the reform work of the Davidians and the Branches
- that is, by distortions of events and doctrines, and by character assassination. Ironically, those are
the same techniques used by the Sunday keeping churches and others against them.
These same Conference representatives were also informed that Koresh had unlawful control
of the Church property, Mt. Carmel Center. This fact was also withheld from their portrayals of the
situation. It doesn't appear that any attempt was made by those so informed of Koresh's unlawful
takeover of our property, and his stealing of our identity, to truly and honestly look into this matter,
or to report the truth that we who have firsthand knowledge and proof of the matter have presented
to them. They certainly made no public inference to even the possibility of Koresh being an
aberration, and not truly representative of the Davidian and Branch reform movements.
The fact that Koresh probably had unlawful control of the property is noted in a couple of
the many books which have been published on the incident in Waco, but was completely ignored by
the SDAs in their book on the subject, In The Wake of Waco, and in their articles, such as, The
Branch Davidians, Who Are They?, in spite of the fact that they not only had access to the same
information which the other authors had, but also that I (at least) informed them of the unlawful
takeover of the property by Koresh the morning after the shootout and the initial newscasts, and
prior to any of their press releases or other publications.
In the 1993 article written by George Reid, The Branch Davidians, Who Are They?, and
published in the SDA magazine Adventist Review, Ben L. Roden, founder, and sole president of the
Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists from 1955 until he was joined in that office by his wife,
Lois 1. Roden, in 1977, is not even mentioned in the article. There would be no Branch Davidian
Seventh Day Adventists if it were not for Ben Roden and the distinct new light doctrines which he
brought. This article not only ignores about thirty (30) years of history of the Branch (from
1955-1986), but also totally ignores any good that we have done and any awards we have won,
especially under Lois Roden's time as president.
As mentioned earlier, Ben Roden died in October of 1978, leaving Lois the sole president

55

until her death in November of 1986. She is not mentioned in the aforementioned article. either.
The reason Ben and Lois aren't mentioned in that article is not only because of the respect that
these two people had from many of their peers in the SDA Church, in the community of Waco, in
Texas, in Israel, and elsewhere in the world (which many in the ministry of the SDAs do not want to
acknowledge), but also because of certain doctrines which they were teaching which could not be
refuted by even the best scholars within and without the SDA Church.
One, which was unique to Lois Roden, was that the Holy Spirit is a feminine
Person,
according to the Old Testament Hebrew revelation, to nature, and the New Testament writers.
Parallel with this teaching of a feminine image in heaven was that of women's equal place in
leadership both in Church and in all phases of home and society. This caused quite a stir within
Adventism and in the religious community in general. It shook up most of the male dominated
ministries that came in contact with our literature which was widely distributed at all sorts of religious
meetings. Because of their particular misunderstandings
of the place of women in the Church, the
home, and society, we received especially heavy flak from

THE BAPTISTS AND OTHERS IN THE WACO COMMUNITY

The fact that Lois was teaching that which was being proven to be true was quite an
embarrassment to the scholars and doctors at Baylor University (a main Baptist school in Waco),
and to the Baptist leadership in general. Some of the congregations in Waco, having received our
literature, were working for the reforms which we were espousing within their own congregations.
Students at Baylor were also responding favorably to our teachings.
Incidently,
in 1998 a Southern Baptist church in Waco was the first one in their
denomination (or, at least in Texas) to appoint a woman as a pastor in one of their churches. Of
course, Southern Baptist men from around Texas picketed the church, opposing her appointment.
Even more recently (spring of 2000), the Southern Baptists have done a general turn around on their
acceptance
of woman
in the ministry,
re-embracing
their former
misapplications
and
misunderstanding of the Scriptures.
In 1987, shortly after Lois' death, the Waco Tribune-Herald,
published an article which
purported to relate the teachings of the Davidians and Branches. The source of the information was
an educator at Baylor University, one Bill Pitt. Despite the fact that much of our literature was
archived in a Baylor University Library, Bill Pitt presented a grossly distorted view of our teachings.
Even though I wrote him a letter explaining his errors, and left some of our literature at his office in
order for him to better understand our position, he did not respond to me, or do anything to correct
his misrepresentations.
It was not without a specific design that the people at the Waco
Tribune-Herald
published the article written by one who was at odds with the doctrines he was
supposedly relating. This would not be the only time such a misrepresentation was to occur.
Following the 1993 incident, a group in Waco called WRS published a book called Mad Man
in Waco, whose authors purported themselves to be world experts on the Branch Davidians. The
book was full of distorted facts and falsehoods. The authors not only misrepresented
Adventist,
Davidian, and Branch doctrines and history, but also spoke badly of Christianity.
Immediately after reading that book, I wrote a lengthy letter pointing out the numerous
errors therein, and demanding that the book be taken out of print, and sent it to Dr. Spence, the
publisher. He wrote back saying that the book was not going into a second printing. He also said that
he felt that I was a pretty good writer and that if I have written anything he would consider
publishing it. I responded by saying that I had written something, and suggested that because of the
harm his book was doing to us that he and the authors of his book give us the profits they made from
it, and that he could publish what I wrote at his expense, giving us all the profits, and putting in my
book a statement explaining his errors in publishing the first book. I felt that such would somewhat
make up for the harm the first book had done. To this he did not respond.

56

In late 1997, I returned to Waco to defend in a lawsuit filed by Koresh's followers to acquire
title to the Church's property. Shortly after arriving I went to Dr. Spence's office, attempting to
have a meeting with him to see if he would be interested in helping me in the current court case. I was
told that he was too busy to see me or make an appointment to do such. Not long thereafter he
committed suicide, reportedly because of a painful cancer illness.
But back to the 1993 incident and

AN ATTEMPT TO WARD OFF THE UNNECESSARY ESCALATION OF VIOLENCE

I called the FBI about two weeks before the April 19, 1993 fiery end to the standoff and told
them that whatever Koresh was planning, he may want it to happen on one of the Bible feast days.
And, since Passover was already over, there was an extremely strong likelihood that he was using 2nd
Passover as the date for his anticipated event. I also told them that if nothing happened at 2nd
Passover, there was a good possibility that some of his followers would give up and leave Mt. Carmel.
The woman that I talked with at the FBI seemed totally disinterested.
I also told her that we had a study, from the Branch point of view, which could very possibly
cause some of Koresh's followers to leave him. This was especially true because of my firsthand
familiarity with his basic teaching. I had also mentioned the study to most of the other media
personnel with whom I had spoken. Other so-called theologians were consulted as to what could be
said from the Bible that might encourage Koresh and his followers to give up, and they were allowed
to speak with Koresh's followers, but all of my pleas fell on deaf ears, so to speak.
Teresa Moore, who also was opposed to Howell/Koresh, was reportedly interviewed on a local
"talk" radio show for nearly two hours after the 1993 incident. She also may have given many facts
regarding Koresh's separate faction which was never reported by the major news media in the nearly
two months of publicity surrounding the Waco incident. This same woman was also reportedly
interviewed for nearly one hour by the FBI.
Along with the foregoing is the

HISTORY OF NEARLY ONE YEAR OF ATTEMPTS TO SET THINGS STRAIGHT

WITH THE SDA LEADERSHIP AND OTHERS
Almost immediately after the tragic incident of Feb. 28, 1993, and especially after the
reactions I had received from the media, etc., I began to notice that the matters which were being
withheld from the public were putting me and the others who were associated with the work of the
true, one and only Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists in grave danger. Distorted reports were
the only things coming forth.
In late summer 1993, after the fiery end to the 50-some day standoff between the law
authorities and the "Koreshians," the SDAs published the book referred to before, that is, In the Wake
of Waco. After seeing the self-serving nature of this book (which contained dozens of serious errors
and as many, or more, defamatory and just plain cruel statements), I immediately sent the SDA
publishers (the Review and Herald Publishing Association) a letter in which I stated some specific
points which were seriously objectionable to us, and demanded that they cease from distributing the
book, and publicly correct their errors. To this, after quite a lengthy time, they responded by saying
that they couldn't understand exactly what I was upset about, and sent me a copy of the book and
asked me to mark the objectionable statements and return it to them, to which they promised to
respond. So I marked the book, and returned it with an additional 19 plus pages of explanations of
our complaints about the book, and about George Reid's article. Because of the tone of their letter I
expected them to give me an honest response to each and every point that I raised in marking the
book by commenting on each statement so marked, as they had indicated.

57

Their response was a sham. They didn't respond to any of the dozens of points that were
raised, as they promised they would. They obviously didn't care about being truthful (or were afraid
to) when speaking with, or about us. They, generally, never have. It seemed like all of the work that
I did in presenting them with sound objections to their false publications was just a joke to them.
They, seemingly, are so firmly set in their ways of misrepresenting us to promote themselves, that
they obviously don't care what harm may come to any of us because of their misrepresentations.
That book is no longer being distributed by them. And then there are the matters of

THE CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS AND HOLLYWOOD

The SDAs were not alone in refusing to undo the harm they had done. In the year following
the 1993 incident Congress held hearings regarding the matter. During the time of those hearings I
faxed six different Congressman who were taking part in the hearings. I pointed out to them the
differences (in doctrine and practices) between Koresh's faction and the real Church, and brought to
their attention HowelllKoresh's use of the different name for his group, and his usurpation of our
name and property. I asked them to investigate those things, and asked them to stop using our name
for Koresh's group. I suggested that they refer to his followers as "Koreshians,"
as one of his
followers who left his compound during the standoff stated that Koresh had said his followers were
now to go by that name. Again, no response of any sort.
During this same time it came to my attention that there was a movie being made about the
1993 incident. It was called, In the Line of Fire - Waco, and starred Tim Daly as David Koresh.
When I found out who was making the film I called them and made an appointment to meet with
them. When I went to their office I told the woman I met with about the situation, and presented her
with copies of Lois' award-winning Shekinah magazine, and other things.
There were numerous pictures of Lois Roden in those magazines <see photo>>>. Though
Lois was a woman of dignified bearing, they chose to portray her in a most unflattering light. That is,
in one of the books which had come out after the 1993 incident there was a picture of George Roden
standing by a woman who was represented in the caption as being Lois Roden. That woman was not
Lois, but was Amo Bishop - the woman who was briefly married (sic) to George in 1987. Amo is of a
very different deportment than was Lois. But the film company chose to disregard the true image of
Lois as seen in the magazines given them, and instead created for the movie a likeness of that
mislabeled picture. In the movie the alleged Lois Roden was portrayed as a dumpy, slovenly-looking
person. With due respect to Amo, the movie's representation was less than flattering to her. They
also disregarded the facts I related to them about Koresh's use of the different name to identify his
faction, and his unlawful use of our name and property. I don't believe that their actions could justly
come under the category of literary license. Following these things there came about

THE DISPUTE OVER MT. CARMEL CENTER

AND OTHER ATTEMPTS TO ABUSE LEGAL PROCESS
Prior to the 1993 incident we would have had a difficult time trying to convince people that
Koresh's group was not at all representative of the Branch doctrines and practices, and was actually a
separate association. It has been hard enough now that the character and practices of he and his
followers are well known. But before they exposed themselves the situation was not only difficult, but
also dangerous due to his willingness, and that of those with him behind the scenes, to resort to
violence. This situation still exists to a degree. The courts are very reluctant to look at doctrines and
practices in determining identity, and usually rely on elected leadership as to determining property
and identity rights. As some of Koresh's followers could prove that they were once members of the
Church's Executive Counsel, it would have been difficult to show that they were no longer members

58

thereof, and had actually abandoned may of the Church's basics teachings and practices.
In 1994, some of the remaining Koreshians filed a lawsuit in order to secure the right to
regain and sell some of their personal property which had been seized by the governmental agencies
after the 1993 standoff. Though some of the property was their personal property, they also
included in their request, almost incidentally, Mt. Carmel Center, itself. They had no lawful title to
the property, nor even an appropriate standing to do such. They didn't receive a judgement on the
Church property at that time. Therefore, on April 24, 1994 they filed a document entitled,
"Certificate of Resolution" in the local county records office wherein they purported to appoint
themselves (11 of them) as "Trustees" of the BDSDA.
In that "Resolution" they stated that they were disregarding the Church's own laws which
required the appointment of Church officers to be only made by the president of the Church. As their
president, David Koresh, was dead, and as they were not looking for another to fill his position, they
could not act within the Church's laws even if they were the true members of the Church (which they
weren't), so they ignored them, again. Even though Koresh (Vernon Howell) had filed a document in
the county records office in 1987 (about the time I left Waco) claiming to be president of the
BDSDA, there is enough evidence available to prove that he was not. In that document they state:
"Whereas, the General Association aforementioned
[BDSDA], did
come under a military style attack on February 28, 1993, by the B.A.T.F., and
underwent a siege and blockade for the next 51 days by the FBI culminating in a fire
on April 19, 1993 which destroyed our headquarters, and resulting in the death of our
president/prophet and 81 other members, it is hereby agreed upon:
"1. Since, according to the Leviticus and by-laws of the General
Association (Pg. 9-11) it clearly states that the Executive Council of said Association
would consist of a President, Vice-President,
Treasurer, a Secretary and three
alternate council Members. Since the office of President can only be filled by God
with someone directly inspired to do so, and since all other officers are to be
appointed by the President, then it has been decided by the General Assembly
members not to reorganize as aforementioned in this document." [underlining added]
From this it is clear that they were attempting to circumvent the BDSDA' s governing laws.
There is no provision in the governing organ of the BDSDA which gives anyone who claims to be a
member the right to disregard its governing laws. Also in that "Resolution" they state:
"3. The Association
of survivors meeting in Waco, Texas have
unanimously agreed that the undersigned individuals shall act in the capacity of
trustee in order to deal with matters of business on behalf of the Association and
other surviving members scattered around the world." (underlining added)
Those Koreshians
willingness to disregard the governing laws of the original Association is
further seen in said document by their pretensive act of wrongfully attempting to appoint themselves
as "Trustees" of the Association. They admit therein that the governing laws of the BDSDA clearly
state that the President of the Association, alone, has the right to fill any vacancies in the original
Association, and not the Executive Council, or the general members of the Association. It appears
that they were well settled in Koresh's system of logic. Those who had left their positions of the
Executive Council under the leadership of Lois Roden in 1984 to join Howell's DBDSDA, and who
later dropped that name and usurped our name, were now, again, ignoring all sense of right doing in
trying to pass themselves off as the legal representatives of the Church.
As noted earlier, on October, 30, 1987, Howell and certain of his followers filed a document
with the Deeds Records of McLennan County, Texas (Volume 1613, Page 693). That document
purported to remove George B. Roden from his position as Trustee of the BDSDA property, Mt.
I

59

Cannel Center. <Appendix

5>

Said document states

"THAT I, Vernon Wayne Howell ... President of the Branch Davidian

Seventh Day Adventists ..., recognized as PRESIDENT by the unanimous vote of the
EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL ... the governing body of the Church (according to The
Leviticus of the Davidian Seventh Day Adventists, Branch Supplement, Constitution
and Bylaws of the Church) which session of the Executive council met on October I,
1987, expressly for the purpose of filling a vacancy in the office of President caused
by the death of its former president, Lois 1. Roden, on November 10, 1986 ... " p. 1
(emphasis added)
What is of note here is they purported to be acting within
"Constitution and By laws of the Church." Yet those actual Bylaws state

the parameters

of the

"the president chairman of the Executive Council is the sole and chief
administrator of the affairs of the Association, ... he alone, therefore, has the sole
authority to grant credentials and licenses, and to fill vacancies that may occur in the
Association's offices." The Leviticus of the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists,Branch
Supplement, p. 10. (emphasis added)
And,
"The Executive Council, therefore, occupies the office as counselors
of the affairs of the Association, to the President, who is the chairman of the
Executive Council, but the Executive Council (For example the cabinet of the
President of the United States Government) without the president/chairman
of the
Association has no authority to grant credentials and licenses. and to fill vacancies,
such as the office of vice president, much less the office of the president." ibid., p.
13. (emphasis added)
Those people who were named in Howell's 1985 Answer which he filed in response to George
Roden's federal lawsuit mentioned above as being members of The Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh
Day Adventists" (DBDSDA) were now in this 1987 document posing as members of the Executive
Council of the BDSDA, even though they had left their positions thereon more than 3 112 years
before to follow Howell who was previously swearing that he was the president of the DBDSDA.
What is also of note here is that for the Executive Council to even exist and operate they must have
the living president who appointed them among them. The Leviticus clearly delineates how the
president becomes such, and there is nothing in that document which follows its prescriptions.
What is also notable about that document is that Howell and his followers were claiming that
he was the successor president to Lois Roden, and not George Roden. Though they were
acknowledging George as being a Trustee of the Church's property in their attempting to remove him
from said position, they were also noting that they also were not acknowledging his claim to the
presidency of the Church. Yet in spite of this, the editors of the Waco Tribune-Herald, and others,
have consistently portrayed George as the successor president to Lois, and the predecessor president
to Howell, even though George was under a permanent injunction which prohibited him from
claiming to be president. Why the news media would want to portray one with a character such as
George's (or Howell's) as the president of the Church will be discussed more later on, though the
reasons should be somewhat obvious at this point.
Also, in Lois' October 19, 1986 Last Will and Testament which was prepared by George and
presented to her to sign (and which he unsuccessfully attempted to enter at Lois' probate hearing),
she crossed out the word "President" in three different places where George had typed in said word in

60

connection with his own name. In two of those three places she wrote in the words "George Roden,
Trustee." (emphasis added) This also shows that Lois would not recognize George as the president of
the BDSDA, nor as her successor about one month before her death. Yet the media and others still
persisted in portraying the matter in a false light. Though this will was not allowed by the court, it is
a part of the file. (Case No. 860731-PRI, Probate Court of McLennan County, Texas). Also, her
own handwriting therein in other places indicates that she was personally familiar with its contents,
and that she had no intention of acknowledging
Vernon Howell or the former members of her
Executive Council at all.
On December 15, 1988, Clive Doyle, and Woodrow Kendrick (both of whom were former
members of the BDSDA's Executive Council), in concert with other followers of Howell, filed a
document in the office of Deeds Records of McLennan County, Texas, entitled "RESOLUTIONS",
under the heading, "BRANCH DAVIDIAN SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST" (Volume 1651, Page 330)
(Exhibit 7). Said document was filed under the pretense that said people, and others in concert with
them were,
"... the Executive
DAY ADVENTIST ... "

Council of the BRANCH

DAVIDIAN

SEVENTH

Said document contains the following statement,

"RESOL VED that Vernon Wayne Howell of Waco, Texas, be and
hereby is recognized as the President and Trustee of the aforesaid association, and as
President and Trustee of the aforesaid association's related organizations, including
Living Waters, the Universal Publishing Association,
and the Branch Organic
Agricultural
Association, and that the former actions of Vernon Wayne Howell
performed on behalf of the aforesaid associations hereby are ratified by the aforesaid
Executive Council ... "
This action was done under the pretense that those mentioned therein, and those other
former members of the BDSDA who, in 1984, severed their allegiance to the BDSDA and the
president thereof, Lois 1. Roden, to give their allegiance to Howell and his new association (the
Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists) were still bonafide members of the BDSDA, and,
as their individual cases may be, still members of the Executive Council of the BDSDA. The purpose
filing of said document was to further their scheme to wrongfully and unlawfully have themselves,
and their president, Howell, recognized as members of the BDSDA, and entitled to the use of the
original Association's name(s) and the property.
What is of particular note here is that Howell never attempted to lawfully challenge Lois'
rights to the presidency of the BDSDA during the three (3) or so years after he started his distinct
association under its unique, new name before she died, and not until everyone who could oppose him
was out of the way, which was around four (4) years after he started his faction.
On April 15, 1996, The remaining Koreshians filed a lawsuit for title to Mt. Carmel Center
(Case No. 96-1152-3, District Court of Mclennan County, 74th Judicial District). Their claim was
based on adverse possession of the property. That is, they were claiming that they had held
possession of the property for a certain statutorily defined time in opposition (adversity) to the
legal owners of the property, and that they were now seeking a ruling that the property was theirs.
What is of note here is that they filed the case as "Trustees of the Branch Davidian Seventh Day
Adventists Association." An adverse possession suit must be filed against the titled owners of the
property. The property was titled in the name of the Trustees of the Branch Davidian Seventh Day
Adventists Association.
The question which naturally arises is that if they had previously lawfully appointed
themselves the Trustees of the Church (which they had no authority to do, though they attempted

61

such), how could they be adverse to themselves? That was just more of Koresh's logic which they
had well learned. But as they were represented by an attorney, Percy "Wayne" Isgett, of Houston,
such logic may have been of his origin. That is, by filing such as they did they had two opposing
means of accomplishing their aim. The first was through the adverse possession statutes. The second
was the recognition of themselves as the rightful Trustees.
When they filed that lawsuit they only named George Roden (who was at that time confined
in a mental health facility), and Amo Bishop (who never was a member of the Church) as defendants
in the case, even though one of their members, Clive Doyle, had the names and addresses of many
people (including me) who were in one way or another associated with the Church, and who would
probably have had an interest in the outcome of the property dispute. They did also list other
potential defendants as "Unknown," but the method that they used to notify the "Unknown"
defendants was anything but fair and honest. They notified them (us) by means of publication in a
newspaper.
The proper way to do that is to publish the information concerning the lawsuit in a large
paper of wide circulation in order to reach those who are unknown to the plaintiff party. But the
paper which they put the notice in, the Waco Farm and Labor Journal, had only 1200 subscribers,
and no general circulation at all. If I hadn't heard of the case by word of mouth, about a year and one
half after they filed it, they would have probably won their case, because George wasn't able to take
part in the case, and Amo didn't have a sufficient defense to their claim. From that action it's
obvious that they didn't want to be aboveboard, but instead pursued an avoidance technique which
Koresh regularly practiced.
Though the matter was set to come to trial in December of 1997, one of the parties was
granted a continuance, which gave me the opportunity to file an Answer in defense of their claim in
January of 1998. In March of 1998, I filed a separate petition for an injunction against Koresh's
remaining followers, to prohibit them from using the name(s) or property of the true BDSDA
Church (Case no. 98-841-3, later, no. 99-1148-3). A few months later the judge, Alan Mayfield,
against my protests, consolidated my case with theirs, thereby significantly delaying my case.
My injunction case was originally scheduled to go to trial in June of 1998, theirs in September
of 1998. Theirs took precedent after the consolidation. The case was again delayed from September
to October, due to the court's jury schedule. My injunction suit originally had preferential status over
almost all other cases before the court, and did not require a jury trial. I lost that status due to the
consolidation of the cases.
The case was again delayed in October, due to the fact that their attorney filed a last minute
amendment to his pleadings. It was rescheduled for December. Shortly after the October hearing,
they filed for a summary judgement
against me on my injunction. They did not prevail. In
December, an few days before we were to go to trial, George Roden died. Their attorney was granted
another indefinite extension of time on the alleged grounds that they wanted to find George's heirs
(or relatives) in order to see if they had an interest in the case. Shortly after that I filed for a motion
to have the two suits separated from each other, as George Roden was not a party to my injunction
suit. I did this in order to eliminate any more delays. My original injunction case was then on its own
again, and was scheduled to be heard in April of 1999. That was around ten months after it was
originally scheduled to go to trial.
On a motion from the Koreshians, my injunction suit was dismissed before it came to trial for
"lack of jurisdiction." Judge Mayfield's order was full of contradictions, misapplications of law, and
the cases which he cited as the basis for his actions were all out of context. None even addressed the
specific issue of jurisdiction that was actually before him. I was almost finished with my appeal to his
ruling when the other case came to trial. After my case was dismissed the judge removed the
temporary injunction which prevented any of the parties from establishing a residence on Mt.
Carmel Center, and Clive Doyle, and later Koresh's father, moved mobile homes on the property
before the trial started.
During the pretrial proceedings I had presented so much evidence to the fact that they could

62

not win on their adverse possession claim, that on the Friday before the trial started they announced
that they were not pursuing that cause of action, but were instead only seeking to be recognized as
the bona fide Trustees of the Church.
Even though the Koreshians presented their above mentioned documents (and numerous
others) to the jury during the trial, the jury ruled against them. My testimony, along with others, and
their own answers to the questions asked of them by me and the other defendant (Amo Bishop, who
was also opposed to me and them) defeated their case. Amo's claim to be recognized as a Trustee was
also denied. The jury rendered their verdict on May 5, 2000.
Immediately after George's death I had filed a document in the county's records office stating
that I was the rightful successor president to Lois Roden, and therefore the lawful trustee. Though at
the trial both of the other parties' claims to being trustees of the Church's property were allowed to
come before the jury, Judge Alan Mayfield refused to allow my claim in court. I was only allowed
there to defend against the others' claims. The jury ruled against them at my request. <Appendix
8> & <Appendix
9>
After receiving the jury's verdict against the Koreshians and Amo Bishop I filed a motion for
a Verdict on the Judgement <Appendix
10> In that document I also sought for additional
findings which included an injunction against the Koreshians from using the Church's identity and
property as such issues came before the jury in the live pleadings (documents) and in oral testimony.
Although this was most proper and called for under the circumstances, Judge Mayfield would only
render the barest judgement of the jury's verdict. That is, that neither The Koreshians, nor Amo
Bishop were the rightful Trustees. That judgement was rendered on October 6, 2000 <Appendix
10>
Early in the course of the pretrial proceedings I was told by officers in the court building that
Judge Mayfield probably would not rule against the Koreshians because of the backlash he would get
from his fellow church members (he is an elder in a Mormon congregation in Waco). Adventists, in
general, are outspoken in their opposition to many Mormon doctrines and practices. Judge Mayfield
once stated to me after he had ruled against one of my motions, and after I stated that I was going to
appeal his ruling, that that was fine with him because he would rather have someone else tell him
what to do. Also, after one of the preliminary hearings, Judge Mayfield came out of the courtroom
wearing a Mickey Mouse Club jacket and cap. Such was what I was up against - not a kangaroo court,
but a mickey mouse court.
Yet in spite of the fact that the Koreshians lost their lawsuit to gain title to Mt. Carmel
Center, they are still on the property. They have built a small church building with the aid of others
(some, well meaning people who identify themselves as "patriots"). Some of those patriots are not
necessarily supportive of Koresh's doctrines or practices, but are unitedly opposed to the actions
taken in the name of their government. But others among them have ulterior motives which are not
so easily recognized by those who are superficial and indifferent in their investigations of the matter.
Some of those who support the Koreshian have accepted the popular errors promulgated by
the press and others that Koresh was the successor to Lois Roden, and/or George Roden, and don't
care to look any further. Others, who know that Koresh's work was so diametrically opposed to
those whom he claimed to be successor to that he just couldn't be such, are doing all in their power to
suppress the truth of the matter by aiding the Koreshians in sustaining their lies.
In the mid-1960s the Texas Appellate Court ruled that because the members second tithe
funds had been invested in the Church's property (the original Mt.Carmel Center, and later New Mt.
Carmel Center) the individual members had a trust right in the property itself. And said ruling led to
Ben Roden acquiring title to Mt. Carmel Center. Under the leadership of Ben and Lois Roden our
second tithes were also invested in the Church's literature and literature distribution work, which was
one of the main outreaches of the Church. Though these matters were brought before the court
during the property trial, Judge Mayfield just ignored them. He was willing to cast away the trust
rights of the members of the BDSDA in order not to rule against the members of the DBDSDA so
that he could be popular with his congregation (and the Lord knows who else).

63

Even though it is a judge's duty to preserve a trust, Judge Mayfield refused to acknowledge the
harm that has been and is continuing to be done to the Church's second tithe trust fund through the
theft of our identity and property, and to take any legal action to stop the harm. The consequences
of this nonfeasance have not yet been fully revealed. Nor its underlying motives.
Immediately after the trial I left Waco, out of fear of repercussion from the other parties.
The sheriffs there would not take any criminal complaints from me regarding the conspiracy,
criminal trespass, fraud, perjury, filing of false documents in the county records office, etc., etc.,
Koresh and his followers had been and are involved in without something from the court to act upon.
But I couldn't provide them with anything because Judge Mayfield would not deal with the real issues
at hand. The district attorney would not even talk to me without something from the sheriffs.
Everything rested on the judge. Yet he was wanting someone else to make the unpleasant rulings.
During the course of the trial I was interviewed by the local TV stations, and by different
people from the Waco Tribune-Herald newspaper. In each and every interview I told the reporters
that I was representing the BDSDA members who did not join Howell/Koresh's DBDSDA group (or
George Roden's group), but remained loyal to Lois Roden. I also told them of the true history of the
situation. Though those reporters heard my testimony, and seemed to understand the situation, none
of the entities they represented would accurately report what I told their reporters. There seemed to
be a different set of reporters for each interview.
The ensuing stories in the Waco Tribune-Herald
grossly distorted almost everything I told
them. They refused to let the public know that there were actually Branch Davidian Seventh Day
Adventists who did not join Howell/Koresh's unique faction. They were also aware that Howell was
using the name Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists for years, but have never
published that fact, even after they were shown evidence to that effect. Their articles which covered
the property/trustee trial repeatedly stated that one of my positions in the lawsuit was that Howell
had "violated church bylaws and changed the name of the true association, thereby relinquishing their
claim to the property." But that it not what I told them.
What they left out of the story was that I told them that I was a member of the church from
1978, and have continued uninterruptedly
since then. Keep in mind that it is their position that
there are no other members of the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists other than those who
ended up with Koresh, because that is the only image they wish to portray to the public. Saying that
] said that Howell/Koresh had "violated church bylaws and changed the name of the true association,
thereby relinquishing their claim to the property," is not only vague, but also obscures the real wrong
which HowelllKoresh
and his followers were guilty. In other words, what was so wrong with
misnaming the church if that's all they did.
But the fact is that they never did" violate ... church bylaws and change ... the name of the
true association," because they left the "true association" under a new name, and that new name also
happened to not be in harmony with the Church's teachings and laws regarding its name. By
departing from the Church's teachings and laws regarding its name, they gave clear evidence that
they were a different group, with different teachings and laws. They didn't "relinquish ... their claim
to the property" because they violated our laws by renaming the church a name which was not in
harmony with our teachings, but rather because they left the Church when they followed Howell
under the new name, and became a separate church. People at the Waco Tribune-Herald knew long
before the property trial that Howell was going under the name "Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh
Day Adventists," but had been suppressing that fact. Something which they would continue to do.
It is so simple, either HowelllKoresh was a new phase of the Church, or he wasn't. Either he
and his followers were acting in harmony with the Church's teachings or laws, or they weren't. It was
my position that the very fact that he wholly disregarded the Church's laws and teaching regarding its
name, and all of the other facts of his doctrinally-based actions which were so contrary to anything
in the Church's history, proved that they were acting as a separate group who were wrongfully using
our identity and property. That's what I told the reporters, and that is what never accurately got in
their stories

64

It was from their series of articles entitled The Sinful Messiah which came
before the 1993 incident, and on the days following the initial shootout that the
Davidian" came into use. At no time prior to that has the BDSDA Association ever
of the name. Following is an excerpt from the beginning of that article. An edited
posted on the internet at the Waco Tribune-Herald's website,

out on the day

name "Branch
used that form
version of it is

"The Sinful Messiah

"The Waco Tribune-Herald Series, Fort Worth Star-Telegram/March
3, 1993,
By Mark England and Darlene McCormick
"Waco - If you are a Branch Davidian, Christ lives on a threadbare piece of
land 10 miles east of here called Mount Carmel.
"He has dimples, claims a ninth-grade education, married his legal wife when
she was 14, enjoys a beer now and then, plays a mean guitar, reportedly packs a 9mm
Glock and keeps an arsenal of military assault rifles, and willingly admits that he is a
sinner without equal.
"David Koresh is now his legal name." Waco Tribune-Herald (emphasis
added).
While what they said may be true of the Koreshians, it is certainly not true of we BDSDAs
who rejected all of Vernon's claims, and who know that he had a separate and distinct association
before he usurped our identity and property. During the course of the property trial I repeatedly
asked one of the article's authors, Mark England, if he knew that Koresh was actually under the name
"Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists" for a number of years. He said "Yes." I then
asked him why that fact was never made known in their newspaper. He had no answer for me. I also
asked him why he and his paper won't correctly portray the fact that I was saying that I was
representing those BDSDA who remained loyal to Lois Roden. He also had no answer.
Why those connected with the Waco Tribune-Herald wouldn't want to admit that there are
members of the Branch who did not leave it to follow Howell/Koresh
is somewhat easy to
understand. They had already published their derogatory portrayal of the Branch Church and
disseminated it worldwide. Therefore, their willful negligence in ascertaining the truth of the matter,
and their total disregard of the negative effects which their publications has had on we who did not
leave the Church to follow HowelllKoresh, has opened them up to a potential billion dollar lawsuit.
This is even more so due to the fact of their continued misrepresentations
of the facts in their
reporting of my stated position in that property dispute case. That is, rather than simply stating the
fact that there are we who claim to be members of the true Branch Church, and who are disavowing
any connection to HowelllKoresh, they have continued to propagate and unjustly defend their 1993
erroneous and injurious declarations.

A SIGN OF ALLEGIANCE
In 1983, 1 shared a two bedroom house on Mt. Carmel Center with Vernon. One day he came
into the living room with his shirt off. Over his breast bone he had tattooed a small "+" (which
looked like a cross). I asked him, "What is that about?" His reply was, "Oh, I used to be into that."
The Bible speaks of ancient Babel (Babylon) as being founded by Nimrod. His son was named
Tammus. According to the traditions of sun worship (which originated in Babylon), Tammus died
and was resurrected at the time of the winter solstice. In occultic traditions Tammus became a
symbol of Lucifer, and the sun worshippers (Luciferians) would tattoo a "+" over their breast bone,
the seat of the emotions, symbolic of their devotion to Lucifer. This was done in antagonism to the
law of God which prohibited the making of marks and cuttings upon one's body, for mankind was
fashioned in the image and likeness of God.

65

When Vernon said, "Oh, I used to be into that", he was telling the truth. But what he didn't
say was that he was still "into that." There are many people who believe and practice witchcraft and
Luciferianism in its higher forms who hold responsible positions in the governments of the world,
and who have no reservations about using their positions to forward their beliefs. Vernon Howell was
sent to Mt. Carmel Center to destroy the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist Church, and was
helped therein by like-minded people who held positions of responsibility
in the governmental
agencies. It is not that all were actively engaged in occultic practices, but that they were in league in
their antagonism against the principles which the true Church stood for.
Around that same time in 1983 Vernon had been aggressively preaching his message to me.
When I would point out things which were contrary to what we believed he would either change the
subject, or bring in some other notion which was supposed to sustain his previous point. It appeared
to me that he was truly avoiding a candid investigation of his teachings. He had not published
anything which could be ciosely scrutinized, and was simply using his rapid fire technique to dazzle
people into believing that his message was from God.
One time when we were alone, when he was attempting to cast his spell over me, I made a
demand of him. I believed that God would keep His promise to us to lead us into all truth, and that
He would not let us be deceived if we are sincere in our desires to serve Him in truth and
righteousness. Therefore, in all humility of mind and faith I said to him, "I bind you in the name of
the Branch to tell me the truth. Is your message from God or from you?" His answer was, "From
me." I then said, "That's what I thought." And he followed that with, "I lied to you."
He had been teaching that he could lie to us in God's name, and still be God's true servant. He
would quote certain Scriptures which he said taught that God would be unto us as a liar (for example,
Jeremiah ]5: 18). In the TV interview he did with the Australian show Current Affair he challenged
people to come and point out his many wives, as though he didn't have more than one. Yet in the
video tape which he made during the standoff on the FBI-supplied recorder he freely admitted that
he had many wives and paraded his many children by them before the camera. It is written of Christ's
true followers, "Surely they are my people, children that will not lie: so he was their Saviour." Isaiah
63:8.
What is truly sad in this regards is the extent to which he was able to get his followers to
embrace the same spirit of lies which he embraced. A good example of this is what occurred during
the trial over the Mt. Carmel property (which was also about whether or not the Koreshians were
Trustees of the property). When taking the oath to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth," Koreshian Clive Doyle answered, "As best as I am able," or something very close to that.
But taking his statement in context with Koresh's teachings it means something other than someone
saying that they will may make a good effort to tell the truth.
It is written, "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than
these cometh of evil." Matthew 5:37. Ellen White stated, "I saw that if there is anyone on earth
who can consistently testify under oath, it is the Christian." Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 1, p.
202.
Koresh had been teaching that since Christians still have an old nature to which they must die
daily (1 Corinthians 15 :31), which they must mortify through the indwelling power of the Holy
Spirit (Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5), and that because he and his followers did not have enough of
the Spirit, then they could not help but do wrong. This erroneous principle was the basis for Koresh's
"sinful messiah," claims.
Therefore, by Clive Doyle's response to the question of whether or not he will tell the truth
he was, in effect, saying that would do the best a self-justifying liar could do. That is, that since he
would not be able to be completely truthful, then he would only be as truthful as he felt like being.
This is exactly what happened. He stated under that oath that he had been a Branch Davidian
Seventh Day Adventist since the 1960s, and was still such. Yet when I asked him about being a
member of the Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists from 1983 until Howell dropped

66

that name and took ours he wriggled around like a snake, so to speak. He avoided as much as possible
acknowledging that Vernon Howell not only used that name for his distinct group, but also published
under that name. But he was not alone in displaying allegiance to the same lying spirit which Koresh
entertained.
I also found it necessary to put Mary Bell Jones (Perry Jones' widow) on the stand and
question her about Howell's use of the other name. When I first arrived in Waco in 1997 I went by
Mary Bell's house to visit with her. Before she and Perry went with Howell we were friends. When I
was at her house I asked her what she thought about Vernon using the name DBDSDA and then later
dropping that name and taking ours. Her response was that she felt that it was "unfair." Yet when I
asked her the same thing about a year later during the property trial she acted like she didn't know
what I was talking about. I also asked her about our conversation at her house in which she said that
it was "unfair," but she said that she did not remember our conversation. That was her response to
almost everything I asked her - "I don't remember." It was really a sad day. She knew exactly what I
was asking, the true answers to the questions, and the consequences of those answers (that they would
lose their case). Thus she too displayed allegiance to the same lying spirit which Koresh entertained.
But the Koreshians were not alone in expressing their allegiance to the spirit that lies. At the
time I entered the lawsuit over the property there was another party (actually two people) who had
filed papers wanting to be recognized by the court. That was Charles Pace, and with him was Tom
Caldwell. It was their position that though Koresh was wrong in the things he did and taught, Mt.
Carmel Center was for anyone who wanted to teach a message. His purpose for taking this stand was
to establish his fight to be on the property and teach his distinct message. In Charles' published
writings he referred to Koresh and his followers who died as fallen brethren. It was my position that
they were apostates. Charles said that I was preaching a message of hate because I declared that
Koresh and his followers were among those who had tasted of heavenly things and who had fallen
away (Hebrews 6:4-8).
Prior to going to Waco for the trial I had talked with Tom and Charles about how the
Koreshians had no standing in court because of their use of the other name to identify themselves. I
also stated to them that Charles use of the name "Living Waters Branch of Righteousness"
to
identify his group was also not in harmony with the Church teaching regarding the name of the
association. Subsequently, Charles changed that name to "The Branch, The Congregation of The
Lord (YHVH) Our Righteousness."
When he joined the property lawsuit his papers were full of misrepresentations
of Church
teachings regarding the name. It was clear to me that he was just trying to have himself established as
the rightful leader of the Church. He had been claiming to have a prophetic message long before Lois
Roden died, but his teachings were rejected. It wasn't as though there wasn't an element of truth in
what he was teaching, but that he was adding all kinds of false teachings along with the truth he did
have.
The reason why I am restating these facts is because during the course of the property trial
Charles had moved on to Mt. Carmel Center and was trying to establish his ministry there, and has
succeeded in doing so. As the Koreshians already had a presence there he had stopped opposing them
and instead joined with them in opposing me, all in the name of the Church and God. Though he at
first opposed the Koreshians, during the course of the court proceedings he later signed a paper
which the Koreshians attorney had prepared in which he and the others who signed it said they
recognized the Koreshians claims to the title of the property. He also signed Tom Caldwell's name
on the document, though Tom has since told me that he did not know at the time that it was being
done, that it was done without his permission, and that he would not have signed the paper.
Just prior to entering the lawsuit I had told Charles that if he was still in the lawsuit with his
current pleadings I would have to file papers against him also, exposing his erroneous position. I
even told him that I would give him a copy of what I was going to file against him so that he could
evaluate his position. This I did, telling him that if he did not withdraw from the case I would file the
papers exposing his errors. He had also filed something in the County Records office trying to

67

establish himself as the rightful owner/leader of the Church. I informed him that if he would also
withdraw that claim from the county records I would not file my papers against him in court. I was
trying to save him from embarrassment. He said that he would do so. When he withdrew from the
court case 1 tore up the papers I was going to file against him, and deleted the file from my computer
do show my resolve to keep my word. I later found out that he had lied about withdrawing the thing
he filed in the County Records office.
After Charles had joined with the Koreshians in the lawsuit I told him that he was bringing
the curse of God upon himself because of joining himself with the Koreshians. He just laughed at me
and mocked me. Yet a couple of months later he was using a tractor/lawn mower from which he was
thrown and which then ran over one of his legs, causing him to lose it. One reason that I am bringing
up these things about Charles Pace is not only because of his presence on Mt. Carmel Center, but
also because what has been written about him and widely published. Among other things is that which
was said in the book, The Ashes of Waco, an Investigation, by Dick J. Reavis. As this book was
among the more reputable ones on the matter of the Church and the Koreshians, what was said about
Charles Pace necessitates comments about him. What was written therein was, "... heirs to Lois
Roden's Living Waters Branch of Righteousness are publishing new materials in Gadsen, Alabama."
The Ashes of Waco, p. 303.
Lois Roden used the names Living Waters, and Living Waters Branch, but never Living
Waters Branch of Righteousness. That name was solely the creation of Charles Pace. He started using
it sometime around 1990. Yet when I talked with him and his helper, Tom Caldwell, about what the
Church teachings and laws had to say regarding the name of the Church, Charles then changed the
name to The Branch, The Congregation of The Lord (YHVH) Our Righteousness. A few years ago, he
put up a large banner on a building on Mt. Carmel with that name on it, and then later joined hands
with the Koreshians to oppose my efforts to stop the Koreshians from gaining unlawful title, and to
restore to those of us who embraced the teachings of the divinely inspired leaders of the movement
our name and property. Charles referred to the Koreshians as "brethren" with whom he was looking
to reunite.
One of his special teachings at that time was that the church no longer needed to partake of
the emblems of our Lord's sacrifice and second coming any more, especially at the time of the
morning and evening hours of worship, which Ben and Lois had just worked to restore within the
Branch movement. He may have since gone back on some of his erroneous teachings, but there are
other things which separate him from the Branch message and movement.
Though there are many other things which could be said about the consequences those who
have aligned themselves with Koresh (and thus with the spirit he served) have brought upon
themselves, such things are not unique to them. The same may be said of those who blindly followed
the orders of their superiors to engage in a military-style raid on a place where there were many
innocent children present. Those agents were blindly following orders as were Koresh's followers.
The very fact that during the standoff the law enforcement officers used psychological warfare (loud
and antagonistic music, violent and tortuous sounds, sleep deprivation, property destruction, etc.)
which only served to draw Koresh and his followers closer together, rather than encouraging them to
surrender and face just legal proceedings, shows that they were just as surely led by a spirit which was
foreign to the principles of truth, justice, and righteousness as were the Koreshians. Most of the
reasons which were the basis for staging the military-style raid were either gross presumptions or
outright lies. Koresh could have simply been arrested off of the property, and there would not have
been the loss of life on either side as there was. But the spirit which controlled both sides cared less
for human life than for pride and power. The pride and arrogance which motivated those trained in
the military arts to pursue the very risky venture of staging the raid was no less than that indulged in
by Koresh and his followers.

---0---

68

Common Questions
There has been much talk about "the Government" having done this or that. It wasn't "the
Government" (the true representative of law and order) which staged the dramatic raid on Mt.
Carmel. It was well known by people in Waco that Koresh could have been arrested off the property
for they saw him off the property regularly. It was people in responsible
positions in the
government who confederated together to misuse their positions to bring about what happened. Here
are some questions to think about:
"Why did the BATF practice their raid for nearly one month at Fort Hood in Texas before it
happened, rather than trying to arrest Koresh on the weapons charges that they alleged had against
him alone?"
"Why were Koresh's followers engaging in military style training, thereby putting a fear of
some hostile actions being taken by them in the eyes of their neighbors and of governmental
authorities, when, historically, the Church was noncombatants and conscientious objectors?"
"Why was there an overwhelming
history of the true Branch Church?"
"Why was Ann Richards,
Koresh's compound?

amount

the Governor

"Why was Janet Reno misled

compound"

of dis information

being circulated

of Texas, lied to about the presence

about the true effects

about the

of drugs at

of the gas that was used on the

"Why was it so easy to mislead almost everybody?"

"Who would profit by the Branch Church being defamed and destroyed? The Sunday keeping
Churches? Those who worship Mary? Those who oppress women in their congregations and in
society? Those who do not want true Christians to come into unity on the truth, because it would
bring an end to their private opinions and practices? Those who misuse Christian principles to bring
in socialistic
programs
whereby they profit financially,
or fulfill their vain desires for
self-aggrandizement?
Those who reject the moral laws of God, or do not want to acknowledge God's
existence?
"Why are those who consider themselves God-fearing Patriots giving their support to a group
of people who allowed Koresh to take control of their minds and wills to the point that they gave
him their wives and daughters to be his concubines, and who were so afraid of offending God that
they would not even ask God, Himself, whether or not it was right to stay inside the compound with
Koresh, further antagonizing those who had the ability to destroy them?"
"When you gonna wake up, and strengthen the things that remain?"
It must be admitted that in this nation which professes "liberty and justice for all," and the
majority of whose people boast of adhering to Christian principles, some things were seriously wrong
in the way the whole thing transpired.

WHY DID ALL OF rnrs TAKE PLACE?

69

Taking into consideration the controversial factors already discussed, is there more depth to
the reasons that all of this happened as it did? Are there really people who have the motives and the
ability to make sure that things happened just the way that they did? Was there some kind of
conspiracy? Or, even just a confederacy of like minds? And most significantly, why did God allow it
to happen, and is there a present truth lesson to be learned from it.
There can be no doubt that religion and politics (church and state) are at the heart of this
matter. No one can honestly say that religious views, or even the lack thereof, were not
instrumental in the use (and misuse) of the police powers of the government (local and national).
One does not have to look very far in this present world, nor very far back into the past, to see
those with the police powers of a government acting contrary to truth, justice, and righteousness in
the name of God. In order to more clearly identify the behind the scenes forces and how they were
used to obtain the results we witnessed, we'll review a few of the more prominent facts which are in
controversy, and how those factors are at play in the world today, that you may prayerfully let the
Holy Spirit of Truth lead you to the right conclusions.
First, and most relevant, is the fact that the Seventh Day Adventists,
Davidians, and
Branches are strict Protestants. Branches even more so than the SDAs and the Davidians because of
our acceptance and promulgation of more of the pure truths of the Bible. This may not mean much
to some, but it should to those who understand the real issues which are behind the controversy.
In order to get the overall story of the controversy, we'll refer you to the book written by
Ellen G. White entitled, The Great Controversy. It relates the story of the conflict between God's
laws and government, and those which have been set in opposition thereto. You can obtain a copy at
most Seventh Day Adventist Book Centers, churches, or online at <The
Great Controversy>>>.
During John F. Kennedy's time as president (America's first Catholic president), attempts were made
to halt the distribution of this book.
Though The Great Controversy was written over one hundred years ago, it is still quite
relevant today. One chapter which has particular relevance to the matter at hand is <excerpt
from
The Great Controversy - chapter Liberty of Conscience Threatened>> One thing Ellen White wrote
about in that book was that the leaders of the United States would repudiate every principle of their
divinely ordained Constitution. So it is today. Following are her words on the subject from another
one of her publications.
"The same masterful mind that plotted against the faithful in ages past is still
seeking to rid the earth of those who fear God and 0 bey His law. Satan will excite
indignation against the humble minority who conscientiously refuse to accept popular
customs and traditions. Men of position and reputation will join with the lawless and
the vile to take counsel against the people of God. Wealth, genius, education, will
combine to cover them with contempt. Persecuting rulers, ministers, and church
members will conspire against them. With voice and pen, by boasts, threats, and
ridicule, they will seek to overthrow their faith. By false representations and angry
appeals they will stir up the passions of the people. Not having a "Thus saith the
Scriptures" to bring against the advocates of the Bible Sabbath, they will resort to
oppressive enactments to supply the lack. To secure popularity and patronage,
legislators will yield to the demand for a Sunday law. Those who fear God cannot
accept an institution that violates a precept of the Decalogue. On this battlefield
comes the last great conflict of the controversy between truth and error. And we are
not left in doubt as to the issue. Now, as in the days of Mordecai, the Lord will
vindicate His truth and His people.
"By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law
of God, our nation will disconnect
herself fully from righteousness.
When
Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman
70

power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when,
under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every
principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall
make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may
know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is
near." Testimonies for the Church, Volume 5, p. 450, 451.
While these statements might seem quite apprehensive or even paranoid to the naive or to
those who are unfamiliar with the great persecutions which have arisen in the past (and even in the
present world) when religious bigotry has gained civil authority to work out its evil intents, such
should not be the case with those who are well-informed in these things. [For those who may be
unfamil iar with the controversies of the past, please see our publication entitled <Opposing
Principles>>] Our teaching of the femininity of the Holy Spirit and Her position in the Godhead,
along with the truth concerning women's equal rights to leadership in the Church, home and society,
in and of themselves, are enough on its own to bring upon us the ire of the masculine dominated
churches and organizations. And it has. From the time Lois Roden began to teach these truths
opposition was mounting.
Because Lois was so steadfast and forthright in presenting that which was revealed to her in
such a wide forum as she did, and because she was receiving approval for such from among many of
those who were well respected in their fields, it is easy to see why she would receive opposition from
those who had the most to lose were the doctrines to be accepted by their congregations and in
society in general. In 1979, when a Roman Catholic Pope came to America for the first time ever in
its history, we were among the crowds distributing literature about how Christians should be praying
to the Holy Spirit as their feminine Intercessor, rather than to Mary. This didn't go over well with
the Catholic hierarchy, it being quite an embarrassment to them. They never have been tolerant
towards those who challenge their teachings. What they consider heresy is a civil crime in many
Catholic dominated countries.
Regarding what is considered heresy, Mirriam-Webster's Dictionary, under "heresy" states, "'all
the great heresies in Christianity have been specifically concerned with the relationship of the Son
to the Father' Weston La Barre." There is no more vital truth concerning the relationship of the Son
to the Father than that concerning the Son's original birth in heaven whereby He became the "only
begotten Son of God." This is summed up in the question most frequently asked by young children at
evangelistic meetings, that is, Who is Jesus' heavenly Mother?
I was talking with a Catholic priest who was among the crowds in 1979 when the Pope was
visiting America about the Holy Spirit being feminine in Hebrew. He, rather proudly, stated that he
had known that fact for "25 years," and then asked me what difference did it make. When I told him
that he should be praying to Her for intercession rather than to Mary he became silent and greatly
embarrassed because of the members of his congregation who were standing there with him and
listening to our conversation. Today I would point him to the results of the Catholic concept of an
all masculine Godhead - homosexual priests and their pedophilia - and would direct his attention to
our publication <c=The Only Safe Sex is Holy Sex>>
The truth of the femininity of the Holy Spirit, and the supplanting of this truth by the
veneration of the Virgin Mary, is not a minor doctrinal matter which theologians may discuss over a
cup of tea (or wine), and go away with diverse opinions. In 1846, the Catholic hierarchy declared
that Mary, in her aspect of the "Immaculate Conception," is the Patroness of the United States. Our
Lady of Guadalupe was declared Empress of all the Americas by Pope Pius X. On August 15, 1950
Pope Pius XII declared the doctrine of the Assumption of the Virgin into heaven. With Lumen
Gentium (1964), Pope Paul VI proclaimed Mary as Mother of the Church. In the 1980s, while it was
still a part of the USSR, Pope John Paul II dedicated Russia to her.
At its root, ancient sun worship was nothing less than Lucifer worship. The hearts of all
cultures have been influenced by the doctrines of sun worship, whether they are aware of it or not

71

(Revelation
18:3). Sun worship (and, therefore, Lucifer worship) is essentially worship of the
masculine principle (Lucifer being masculine, with no feminine counterpart). From ancient times, in
symbolical language, the sun represented the masculine principle, the moon, the feminine principle,
and the stars, the offspring (children) (Genesis 37:9, 10). In Hebrew, not only is the Holy Spirit
referred to as being wholly feminine, but, also, the words law and wisdom are feminine. Lucifer hates
things feminine for he sinned against those feminine aspects of God - Spirit, law and wisdom.
There are many books written by researchers who show how most of the principles and basic
rites of ancient sun worship exist in the Catholic fellowships (Roman, Anglican, Eastern Orthodox,
etc.) and in those so-called Protestant denominations which are only partially reformed. Many
woman have been repulsed by the male domination in the Christian churches (and in the Jewish
fellowships), and have, therefore, turned in disgust from what they see to be the religion of the Bible
and looked to witchcraft and other spiritualistic fellowships for a place to be where they wouldn't be
treated as less than human - less than being made in God's image and likeness, as it is written (Genesis
1:26, 27). The Branch is the only place where they can experience true Biblical Judeo-Christianity,
and still embrace their God-given femininity and its attending dignity.
Though today there are many groups of Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus as their Messiah,
they, also, are caught up in following the commandments and traditions of men - that being the
teachings of their rabbis and the Talmud. Most of them are still embracing many of the pagan and
other non-Scriptural
concepts and practices for which Jesus and the prophets rebuked their
forefathers (Isaiah 29:13, Matthew 15:9), and which they carried with them from Egypt and
Babylon. I certainly don't mean to belittle the sincerity of anyone's faith, but only wish to point out
the underlying controversy, and why so many people would rather see our movement buried alive
than have to deal their own private interpretations. Not only do many of the Messianic
Jewish
congregations follow the common Jewish rabbinical custom of denying women's equal rights in
Church matters, but many even deny the femininity of the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Hebrew
Scriptures, or seriously down-play the matter. Some, such as Jews for Jesus are even primarily
Sunday-keepers, but blend such with a few basic Jewish rabbinical teachings.
Therefore, it is understandable why the Catholics, other Sunday-keepers, even some Jews, and
many others would want to use the extensive powers they have over the media and elsewhere to
suppress the truth of our Church and the doctrines and practices we teach, and instead want the
popular distortion of Koresh being the true leader of the Church to be all that was brought forth to
the public. The same is true in regards to George Roden being portrayed as a president of the Church
(which he never was). Both misrepresentations
were propagated for the purpose of destroying the
image and influence of the true Branch Church. But the Catholics are not alone in their misuse of the
major media.
Along with the controversy regarding the Holy Spirit, is the matter of the Sabbath. The
leaders of the Sunday-keeping Churches admit that Saturday is the seventh day of the week (and
always has been), and that it is the day designated as the Sabbath. The Catholics claim that they
changed the day from Saturday to Sunday on their authority. Others, such as the Baptists, say that all
of the Ten Commandments were nailed to the cross, and done away with, and that now Christians
are under grace, meaning that there is no need to keep the Sabbath commandment, and they worship
on Sunday out of convenience and custom. Some even do so saying that they are honoring the day
of the resurrection, though there is nothing in the New Testament which sustains their custom.
Any challenge to those concepts goes right to the matter of their authority. They, of course,
have their so-called scholarly arguments which they use to support their claims, and also have their
church organizations
in which men (and rarely women) rule over what is taught to their
congregations. In all of those groups their leaders hold their positions because they were put there by
men of like minds, and not necessarily because God has specifically appointed any of them to lead
those who would be His people. For example, in the Roman Catholic Church a pope is selected by a
mere 2/3 of those who vote. That means that as many as 1/3 of the leaders of their organization
may not believe that the one who is chosen pope should be the pope. In the Baptist and other

72

congregational type churches a bare majority (51 %) may determine their leadership (and thus those
who will teach doctrines).
A prime example of how men with presumed authority in the church use their power to
enforce their interpretations of the Scriptures, and particularly in the Sabbath/Sunday controversy, is
the action taken by the Church of England early in the Reformation. When the reformers were
becoming aware that the keeping of Sunday rested on no higher of an authority than that of the
ancient nominal bishops who, in league with the rulers of Rome, declared that the Church was no
longer to observe the Sabbath, but instead were to honor Sunday with the same sanctity, they set
about to concoct the theory that Christ, Himself, had actually changed the Sabbath. To do this they
had to place an warranted construction on the Scriptures and their translations of them which had no
foundation in any viable Church tradition.
An instance of this is seen in their interpretation of the King James translation of Colossians
2: 14, which reads, "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was
contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." While the context of the text
clearly indicates that it is our "trespasses" (verse 13), which are referred to in the phrase "the
handwriting of ordinances that was against us," those who were against the church returning to
keeping the true Sabbath started teaching that this phrase applied to the Law, and it, including the
Sabbath, is that which was nailed to the cross and done away with. This they did in spite of the fact
that the one Greek word which they have translated into that whole phrase means "debts," "l.O.U.s,"
and was anciently used extensively to mean precisely that. This presumption equaled that of the
Roman Church. While the Roman Catholic Church boasts that they changed the Sabbath to Sunday
on their own authority, the Church of England boasted that their new interpretation
of the
Scriptures in this matter was the correct one. And they both have gone forward to enforce their
presumptions through civil authority.

"MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD"

So far we have traced a few of the religious controversies which are issues in the warfare
against the Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventists - the femininity of the Holy Spirit, the
Sabbath and the Feast Days, and the authority of church leaders. These matters, in and of
themselves, in the realm of thought and belief may constitute elements of a spiritual warfare, but
when they are coupled with politics (law and economics) the consequences reach to the every day
practical lives of those involved in the controversies.
It is written, "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my
kingdom not from hence." John 18:36.
For the first few centuries of the Christian era the disciples of Christ suffered great
persecution from those who held the political power in the Jewish and Roman societies. Yet in spite
of this the Church grew mightily without the ability to wield any civil authority to enforce their
doctrines and practices, and without any financial support from the governments. Those who used
civil authority to oppose the true Christians resorted to the confiscation
of their property,
imprisonment, torture, and death in an attempt to stop the spread of the Gospel. In the fourth
century, though, things changed. The Roman government no longer found it expedient to continue
persecuting the Christians, so they instead granted them political favor.
At this same time many of the leaders of the Church were already perverting the pure
principles of the Gospel, mixing them with pagan thoughts and practices. Some of the New
Testament writers warned the Church of those who from within in it would thus corrupt the purity of
the Church:
"Beloved, when r gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should

73

earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there
are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this
condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and
denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ. ... These are spots in your
feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: ... These
are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh
great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage." Jude
3, 4, 12, 16.
"Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is
worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is
God." 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4
"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be
false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying
the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many
shaH follow their pernicious ways; bv reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil
spoken of. And through covetousness
shall they with feigned words make
merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their
damnation slumbereth not." 2 Peter 2:1-3.
After gaining political favor, certain of these backsliding or unconverted leaders sought to
oppress those in the Church who resisted their departures from sound doctrines and practices by
getting the government to persecute those whom they labelled as heretics. Thus there were those
who attempted to make Christ's kingdom "of this world," and particularly of the Roman world, and
who became known as the Roman Catholic Church. They went so far as to justify their persecution
of those who rightly dissented from their baseless assumptions by saying that it was actually for the
good (for the salvation) of those whom they thus oppressed. Such was the logic which eventually
found its full expression in what was known as the Inquisition. For the specifics on this matter see
our study <Opposing
Principles>'>'>.
This error, once embraced, has been a hard lesson for Christ's Church to unlearn. Even after
those who became known as Protestants in the 16th century had broken away from the Roman
Catholic Church and many of her doctrines and practices, many of them still retained the most
grievous error of them all - the uniting of Church and State to enforce Church institutions, and to
punish those (both believers and unbelievers) who would leave matters of conscience in religious
matters between a man and his Creator. On this subject Jesus said,
"I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not
abide in darkness. And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not:
for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and
receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the
same shall judge him in the last day." John 12:46-48.
How widely this varies from the doctrine put forth by those who have joined, or would join,
Church and State. Many demand liberty of conscience in religious matters for themselves, but are
adamant in denying it to others. In the writings of the Jewish Rabbis there are many differences of
opinions expressed which are tolerated. The same is true in the Catholic Church and most Protestant
churches. But for one outside of the flock, so to speak, tolerance is not readily extended.
The Protestant
Church-controlled
State persecutions,
while not on the scale of the
Catholic-run Inquisition, led to the Puritans fleeing to the American soil in the hope of experiencing
a purer religion. Yet they too practiced their own version of Christ's kingdom "of this world," as did
the most of the colonial settlements which came after them. So up till the time of the Declaration
of Independence most of the western world (Europe and America) was choking in the stale air of the
union of Church and State. In the relative freedom of the independence gained by the declaration of

74

the inalienable rights and equality of all men, and the Revolutionary War which was fought to prove
the validity of those declarations, our forefathers set forth to frame a Constitution whereby the
freedom they had found in their purer concepts of religion could be preserved for them and their
posterity.
While all of the original thirteen Colonies, except Rhode Island, had Christianity in some
form or another incorporated into their civil government, the framers of the national Constitution
purposely intended that no such provisions would be included in it. Their reasons for such were not in
the least based on an antagonism towards Christianity, but rather on their great love of it. They were
well aware of the many forms religious intolerance that had taken during the prior centuries in
Europe, and even in their more recent history in the Colonies, all in the name of Christ, and were
determined to have their newly-formed government based on liberty of conscience in religious
matters. In their own colonies they had seen the results of civil intolerance which the Episcopalians,
Methodists, and Congregationalists had exerted upon each other and upon the Baptists and Quakers,
and which each of these had exerted in different ways upon the Catholics, and were determined not
to bring such ability into the new Constitution. They knew that the nation was composed primarily
of varying forms of Christians, but specifically avoided creating the national government as a
"Christian Nation," because then they would have to define exactly what true Christianity was, and
is, and this they saw was beyond the purpose of civil governments. They made no pretense of setting
up a theocracy, as had been done in Rome (both pagan and Papal).
Yet in spite of this fundamental doctrine which was incorporated in the establishment of the
United States Constitution
and government, towards the close of the nineteenth century the
Sunday-keeping churches managed to somewhat overthrow this principle through their collective
influence. This came about through a decision of the Supreme Court in 1892. That decision came
forth in this way:
In 1887 Congress enacted a law forbidding any alien to come to this country under contract
to perform labor or service of any kind. The reason for that law was that large contractors and
corporations in the United States would send agents to Europe to employ the lowest of the people
whom they could get to come over and work. They would pay their expenses to this country, and,
because of this, required them to work at so much the smaller wages after they arrived. This was
depreciating the price that Americans should receive for their labor, and therefore Congress enacted
said prohibitionary law.
Trinity Church corporation, in New York City, had employed a preacher in England to come
over here and preach for them. They contracted with him before he came. As he was an alien, and
came under contract to perform service for that church, the U.s. District Attorney entered suit
against the church for violating said law. The church was found guilty, and appealed to the Supreme
Court.
The Supreme Court reversed the decision, first upon the correct and well-established principle
that "the intent of the lawmaker is the law." The court quoted the lawmakers' express declarations to
the affect that the terms "laborer" or "labor or service" used in the statute was intended to mean
only manual labor or service, and not professional
service of any kind. When the court had thus
made plain the intent of the law, this was all that was necessary to reverse the lower court's decision,
and to allow the church to hire their preacher.
But instead of stopping with this all-sufficient line of reasoning, and court unnecessarily also
took up another one in supposediy trying to find the intent of the lawmakers. And hardly ever were
the aptness and wisdom of a piece of advice which Abraham Lincoln once gave to a friend, "Never
say what you need not, lest you be obliged to prove what you cannot," more completely illustrated
than in this unnecessary line of argument which was pursued by the U.s. Supreme Court in the
February 29, 1892 decision in this case.
The court unanimously declared that "this is a religious people," "a religious nation," and
even "a Christian nation," and as such is "the voice of the entire people." In attempting to reason
that the lawmakers never intended to include religious establishments in the prohibition, the court

75

first stated as follows:

"But beyond all these matters no purpose against religion can be imputed to
any legislation,
State or national, because this is a religious people. This is
historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour there is a
single voice making this affirmation."
Every citizen of the United States knows that this is not true, either historically or otherwise
- that this is a religious people. Not even a majority of the people can be said to be religious. Not in
a single city, town, nor village in the United States. That is to say, this was so up to the rendering of
this decision. Since that time, of course, the people are religious, because the Supreme Court says so.
This must have come as a surprise to many of those Americans who had never chosen to be so. But
not only did those people not know they were "a religious people," but that they were also
specifically "a Christian nation" - Jews, Buddhists, infidels, and all.
The reason I have brought up this matter is because we hear the same argument from many
people today - that this is a Christian nation. But the question is, Which type of Christian nation? one "of this world?" An Episcopalian one? A Methodist one? A Baptist one, A Catholic one? A
Seventh Day Adventist one? Or just a general Christian one? While the First Amendment to the
Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof," it doesn't say anything about a general religion.
In the above noted case the Supreme Court could have simply noted that Congress could
never have intended to include those who contracted to provide professional services to a religious
establishment, for such would have been expressly contrary to the "free exercise" clause of the First
Amendment. That would have been sufficient to eliminate any similar controversies arising from the
new law. But instead of confining themselves to the constitutional issues, they went beyond those
and introduced the Christian nation matter. As the law was never intended to discriminate against a
Jewish Rabbi who may be hired under contract to come to America to render religious service in a
synagogue, for the court to add the superfluous language regarding Christianity was to undermine the
principle of the separation of Church and State, and to set a precedence which could be used
reestablish the religious intolerance which the founders of the country sought to avoid and inhibit by
their declarations of liberty.
In their argument in the above mentioned case one of the points the court used to try and
prove that this was a "Christian nation" was the fact that
"the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath [Sunday]; with the general cessation of all
secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that
day ... add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a
Christian nation."
In giving this recognition to Sunday as supposedly being a Christian institution, they were, in
effect, declaring this a Catholic nation, for, as noted earlier, the Catholic Church alone claims
responsibility for the keeping of Sunday, the first day of the week, as the Sabbath, rather than the
seventh day. They also declare that all Protestants who keep Sunday as the Sabbath or as a special
day of worship are actually paying homage to them in spite of themselves. Such is the absolute truth
of the matter. And such became the public declarations of the Catholic Church in the years following
this court decision - that this is a Catholic nation.
For a number of years now professed Catholics have held a majority in Congress. They also
claim the largest percentage in the American population in general. But their numbers are deceptive.
They count everyone who was ever baptized a Catholic as a baby, regardless if they ever practice the
religion, or whether or not they actually have chosen to leave the Roman Catholic Church and join a
Protestant church. Many of those who call themselves Catholics only do so because they were

76

baptized such as babies, and feel that they have to profess something religious so as to gain respect
from their peers. Such is also easier than truthfully saying that they are agnostics or atheists, and
having to discuss religion with non-Catholics.
One of the main reasons why men such as James Madison (the primary writer of the
Constitution), Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington argued so strongly for the separation of
Church and State in the Constitution was because at that time the ministers of many of the churches
were attempting, through their congregations' use of the political system, to have a tax levied for
the support of Christian ministers. Jefferson and Madison had defeated just such a proposed law in
Virginia just prior to the adoption of the national Constitution, and succeeded in having a bill passed
in defense of true religious liberty which prohibited the state from compelling anyone to financially
support any religious organization.
Washington also voiced his opinion in opposition to the
purposed assessment. A few of the other states had already specifically declared that their citizens
had the right not to be compelled to support any ministry. Yet today this precious principle is being
greatly eroded and, it appears, soon to be totally repudiated.
There is currently a strong movement to grant faith-based
institutions federal tax moneys
for the accomplishment of social programs. The discussion seems to be past the question of whether
or not it should be done, but it yet remains to be decided how to determine who should or should not
be given the money. If all religious organizations are included in the provisions, then that would
mean that even witchcraft and Lucifer worshipping groups would qualify. The same would apply to
Muslim or other groups who could possibly funnel the money to terrorists. Though there are some
Muslim groups which do provide some noteworthy services to their people and even others, the
problem lies in determining who is who. Some of those who would get the funds don't care who else
gets them as long as they get their share, while others are determined that only those whom they
approve of would benefit thereby.
Not only is tax money to go to support faith-based social programs, but it is now being given
to support religious educational institutions by means of school vouchers. In the middle and late
1800s the Roman Catholic Church was strongly opposed to the public school systems in America
because they felt that education was their responsibility and prerogative, and theirs alone. The
Lutherans were of a similar mind. Neither wanted a presentation of the facts of life without their
particular spin on things. This is especial true in regards to history, and even more so in regards to
religious history. But now they are all for using public funds for their own purposes - that being to
promote their religious doctrines.
In the past couple of decades Catholic schools have been in financial straights. Now their
church members are being allowed to use public moneys to pay the school tuitions and other costs.
Of course some of those moneys are going to be going to be used by the church to pay for the
expenses they have incurred due to all of the child abuse cases they have been involved in. One of
the last statistics in this matter is that there have been around 11,000 cases of abuse by over 4,000
priests and other clergy. Though this represents less than 10% of the priests in America, the costs of
settling the claims, and other legal fees are passed on to the congregations in one way or another.
The most recent excuse the church gave for the large extent of the abuses, and the massive coverups
was that they received bad advice from psychiatrists and attorneys. One might rightly ask, What
need does an organization which professes to have the wisdom of God in their midst have of
psychiatrists, and why would those who claim the right to define moral law be taking bad advice from
lawyers? Can't the Holy Spirit guide them in right actions in both matters? In one particular case, the
church chastised the abused defendants for seeking so much money in damages claiming that the
people would not do anything good with the money.
As mentioned earlier, it has been the plan of those who are seeking to police religious
thought to give power to the National Council of Churches to evaluate who and what is acceptable in
religious thought and practice. The National Council of Churches does not allow Sabbath-keeping
churches to be a part of the organization. The unity which they are seeking to accomplish is not
based on their desire to unite on all points of doctrine and practice, but only those which enable

77

them to gain power against those who point out their common errors. This is one reason that
Seventh Day Adventists, in general, could not conscientiously be a part of that organization even if
were they allowed to be. The apostle Paul wrote:
"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation
wherewith ye are called, With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another
in love; Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and
one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One
God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4: 1-6.
One would have a hard time believing that those in that organization have even read those
verses, for many of them won't even partake in the Lord's Supper with each other because of their
divergent
opinions on its nature and manner of performance.
The main reason for their
participation
in the organization is to maintain their individual authorities. They are willing to
acknowledge the others' assumptions to propagate their distinctive doctrines and practices and still
be called Christian, as long as they can do the same. Such was the spirit which motivated the
backslidden leaders of the congregations in the centuries following the apostolic times to form the
Catholic Church. Their motto can be summed up in the words, "Let's agree to disagree." The Lord
through the prophet Isaiah well spoke of this situation:
"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread,
and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach." Isaiah 4:1.
Applying well accepted Biblical symbols to this passage it is understood to mean:
"And in that day seven [all] women [churches] shall take hold of one man [Christ], saying,
We will eat our own bread [doctrines], and wear our own apparel [righteousness]: only let us be called
by thy name [Christians], to take away our reproach.
Yet the prom ise to the faithful, no matter where they may currently be, is that, "Thy
watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to
eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion." Isaiah 52:8. They are not going to "agree to disagree,"
but will agree to agree by casting away their idols of private opinions and theories. Such will be
accomplished by all giving heed to "the voice." "The voice" is that of the "Good Shepherd" brought
by the Holy Ghost.
The only way for Christ to be glorified in the unity of followers for which He so earnestly
prayed (John 17:22), is for them to be so humble through the presence of His Spirit that they will
accept the truth when they hear it, and cast away their private opinions and theories when they
become aware of their erroneous nature. Any other type of unity will only prove to be a self serving
counterfeit.
Jesus prayed, "Now I am no more in the world, but these [the disciples] are in the world, and I
come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they
may be one, as we are." John 17: 11.
There is the pattern for true unity - be one, as God is one. But there are many different
opinions as to what "God" being "one" means. Among the peoples of the earth there are many who
hold to the belief that there are many gods, each in opposition, somewhat, to the other, but that
they are one because they are the gods, and others aren't. Thus the unity, the oneness, which they
are seen to have with one and another is only as binding as their own pattern of the heavenly allows.
This was the very type of unity which existed in ancient Rome, and which eventually united

78

with the nominal Christian bishops in forming the Papacy. The unity (the oneness) existed only as
much as one bishop would confederate with another in allowing each other's erroneous opinions and
practices to continue unchallenged and with profit to them. This is the very type of unity which is
sought by many or most of the leaders of those churches which make up the National Council of
Churches and many similar politically united church groups. Unity in the truth, in doctrine and
practice, is secondary (if even intended at all) to the projected unity.
In praying for the unity of His people, He further said, "And the glory which thou gavest me
I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." John 17:22.
Thus we see that a means has been supplied by which His people "may be one, even as [God]
are one." - that means is the "the glory which thou gavest" Christ - Holy Spirit, by which we are
guided into all truth (John 16:13). Though all of the different denominations each profess to be led
by the Holy Spirit into their interpretation of the truth which distinguishes them from one another,
their true disunity cannot be blamed on the Holy Spirit, but rather on their stubbornly resisting the
influence thereof by clinging to their errors, which in effect is just the making of an image to their
idea of the Godhead.
Yet the Bible portrays the image of the united Godhead in speaking of the family of God, and
the absolute oneness therein. That Family is not after the image of fallen man whose families are
corrupted, one way or another, by the indulgence of selfishness. The Father and Son are not acting in
opposition to each other or the Holy Spirit. In all of their works they are one. Each purpose and
decision has been unanimously declared to be the will of all the united (one) Godhead. One does not
teach things contrary to the other. So then must be with Their image and likeness on earth. The
apostle Paul wrote,

Romans

"So we, being many, are one body in Christ,

12:5.

and everyone

members

one of another."

Some would extend this principle to mean that members of the Catholic Church are members
of the Lutheran
or Baptist churches,
and vice versa. That, Methodists,
Quakers, Amish,
Pentecostals, Holiness, Mormons, Spiritualist, and Theosophical bodies are "every one members one
of another. Yet this could hardly be the meaning of Paul's declaration. He had so often written to the
disciples on how they were to strive to have no divisions among them that it would be hard for those
who were familiar with his counsels to believe that the type of unity which sought for by those such
as the National Council of Churches is that which the apostle spoke of.
Though the Catholic Church is not formally a part of the National Council of Churches, her
influence therein goes without saying. The image which is being created by those and similar
organizations is that of the world during the dark ages in religion which preceded them when the
Catholic Church dominated the political scene.
Though it is certainly true that God's true and faithful people are scattered throughout many
different congregations, it is clearly His intention to have them all in one united, visible body. This
is seen from the work which accompanies the coming of the angel in Revelation 18: 1-5 - that is, the
call for God's people to "come out" of Babylon into a safe and clean place where they will not
receive of "her plagues."
Paul also wrote,
"For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread."
Corinthians 10: 17.
He followed that thought later by saying,

79

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether
we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Corinthians 12: 13.
The "one body"he spoke of is produced by each of the members thereof partaking of the
"one bread," Christ in His truth as revealed in "...the law and the testimony." (Isaiah 8:20), and
drinking of the same Spirit which leads into all truth. Those who desire to eat their "own bread," and
wear their "own apparel [spiritual coverings]," would naturally object to anyone (such as those who
bear the true reform messages of the Adventist, Davidian, and Branch movements), pointing out
that their familiar bread has been contaminated by coming in contact with the private opinions and
theories of self-exalting men, and that some of their spiritual coverings are made of low quality
materials which neither will keep them warm nor protect them from the trying elements, while
others are full of holes, others mismatched, others don't fit well, and yet others are of poor and
uncomely design, and that along with these things some of those "seven women" are even wearing
men's clothing (and vice versa) - not at all representative
of the "woman" (the Church), the
Daughter, of whom it is said that she, "looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the
sun, and terrible as an army with banners?" (Song of Solomon 6: 10), and who wears the robe of the
Bridegroom's righteousness.
Yet there are others besides those seven women who hold a different attitude - "Thus saith
the LORD of hosts; In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all
languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go
with you: for we have heard that God is with you." (Zechariah 8 :23.) These ten men are
representative of a class who exercise their freedom to choose what they will investigate, and to
believe and to act upon their convictions even though they know that they must accept the ways of
this one who is represented as "a Jew" in order to go with Him. They also realize that going with
Him will involve some changes on their part. Yet they know that the sacrifices will be worth it.
We have seen two of the opposing principles illustrated as seven women and ten men. But
though the symbols portray the women in a sinful state, and the men in acts of righteousness, it is
obvious that both men and women can equally be a part of that which is represented in each case. A
man or a woman could, at first, even be a part of that which is represented by the seven women, and
lattr, after they repented of saying that they prefer their own ways, be represented in the figure of
the ten men. So the controversy involves each individual's choices - the

DIVI~~ RIGHT - THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE

At the end of the American Revolution, and after the establishment of our Constitution (and,
thus, the forming of our national government), we entered into a treaty with England to put an end
to the war, called the Treaty of Paris (1793). That document begins with the King of England's
extensive list of titles. Two of his titles were "arch treasurer, and prince elector of the Holy Roman
Empire." Though the "Holy Roman Empire" formally ceased to existed shortly after that time, its
principles and the powers behind it have continued on.
Even though England's
government
and church are sometimes represented
as being
Protestant, its history during the centuries following the beginning of the Protestant Reformation of
Martin Luther and others in Germany in the early 1500s was fraught with struggles between the
Roman Catholics and the various Protestant reformers. The Church of England (known in America
as the Episcopalian Church) can really only be considered as Catholic-light, for their doctrines and
practices vary only slightly from those of the Roman Catholic Church. The same thing can be said
of both of their political structures.
In England, as in other Catholic countries, the people are subjects of the sovereign ruler, the
king or queen, and/or the powers behind them. In England, the king or queen is also the head of the

80

church. In Catholic countries, the kings and queens used to reign by appointment by (or agreement
with) the Pope (and the powers behind him). In non-monarchal Catholic countries, in general, the
people are still subjects of the government, and, generally, do not have the individual rights and
liberties which Americans have attempted to secure to themselves by means of the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution. The various Protestant and Catholic rulers of England have
never truly understood nor practiced the principles of religious liberty which were embraced by the
founders of this country, and which were declared to be each individuals by divine right.
The first people who settled in America (the Pilgrims - Puritans) were those who were
fleeing religious persecution in England. It wasn't just differences of opinions on theological
concepts that caused the persecution, but it was the outworking of the religious thoughts - the daily
lifestyle - that was, and is still, contested. When Christopher Columbus set forth under the auspices
of the King and Queen of Spain one of his duties was to expand the dominion of the Roman Catholic
hierarchy. This was not only for theological reasons (the supposed salvation of the peoples of the
world), but also for economic considerations. The charters for the first official colonies in America
were of the same nature - commercial and imperial expansion, with religion interwoven.
Upon issuing the Declaration of Independence, the people of America declared themselves
(each of them, individually) to be sovereigns.
Each of the state governments and the national
government were established by acts of the people in their sovereign capacity. Though the separate
governments exercise sovereign powers, they did so only upon that which was delegated them by the
sovereign people. Though this principle was fundamental in many of the newly formed states, it was
only barely tolerated by the leading powers in others.
As the Roman Catholic Church (and those who were associated with them behind the scenes)
wanted to keep its hold over England (and other countries whose people wished to embrace the
Protestant principles), they were not happy with the independence of the American people, who
were mainly Protestants. As stated previously, the founders of our country were well aware of the
religious differences between the peoples and the states which they created, so they attempted to
make sure that each one's individual religious beliefs and attending lifestyle would be protected from
intrusion by any others, while at the same time providing through free elections in a constitutionally
protected republican form of government a means for those who would allow love, decency, truth,
justice, and righteousness (which so many of them held so dear) to prevail in our society.
They were well aware that some would not yield up their beliefs and practices which would
tend to be oppressive to others, and would even be willing to undermine the freedom of others in
order to promote their belief that they had the right to compel men's consciences, and to punish all
who would challenge their dictatorial assumptions. Remember, the United States was formed as a
constitutional republican form of government, based on democratic principles. That is, in a pure
democracy (which we, thank God, are not) the bare majority rule over the minority, and the
minority do not have any rights except those which the majority grant them. In our republic,
though, while the larger portion of the people are able to guide the direction of the government
(usually by a 2/3 vote, not a mere 51 %), the rights of the minority are still protected from
validation by the larger portion by the constitutions which created the ability for the larger number
to direct the government.
This would have worked out just fine, were it not for the fact many of the leaders of the
different congregations in America refused to come down from their exalted thrones of self and
pride of opinion and put away their own private opinions and theories (which were based on wresting
the Holy Scriptures from their original context and meaning), and come together to seek God's own
mind on the various matters, and come into unity with each other on truth, and truth alone, and
then letting such be reflected in their society. After all, they were the one's who were given, or who
had assumed the duties for instructing their congregations as to what was and was not God's will for
them, and what was the truth regarding the Christian's duties, rights, and restrictions in regards to
their government. Alas, the age old "divide and conquer" technique was destined to prevail. The
enemies of truth and righteousness would have it no other way. "Rule or ruin" is the motto they take

81

to their graves. This was the cause of the American Civil War, the bloodiest war in our history. Judge
not whether or not this observation might be harsh, but, rather, is it true to life as we have
experienced it?
From the earliest days of this country the pulpits of the churches have been used to preach
politics in one manner or another. The Civil War was not fought, primarily, to free the slaves, but
rather to preserve the Union. Many of those in the North were as opposed to the abolition of
slavery as were those in the South, and used their positions in the army to see that the abolitionists
under their charges suffered the brunt of the battles. Yet amid all of this were the leaders of the
various churches who were encouraging their congregations on both sides of the conflict to act for
the maintenance of the institution of slavery. There was no greater influence in favor of bigotry and
the idea that men could enslave other men than that which came from the pulpits.
But even before the Civil War a major attempt was made to destroy the principles expressed
in the Declaration of Independence upon which our Constitution was established. That attempt
became known as The War of 1812. Within less than ten years after England had signed the Treaty
of Paris we were back into war with them. But what was at the heart of the conflict at that time is
but little understood today. Though today it is generally believed that that war was a dispute over
Canada, there were other matters which actually were the motivation for the actions which led to
the war. While many Americans wanted true liberty from the powers which ruled England and the
Old World, some of the Founding Fathers were so entangled with those powers through former
associations that certain compromises and concessions were made at first which would, of necessity,
have to be dealt with later. Such was the situation surrounding the War of 1812.
As stated earlier, the great controversy is between the laws of God and those of man. Man's
laws allow people to get away with stealing another's fortune and livelihood by means of fraud,
oppression, and dishonesty, while God's laws forbid such actions. Man's laws allow those in positions
of responsibility in the governments to get away with abusing their offices, while God's doesn't.
Leaders have made agreements with others which God has never given them the right to do, binding
those they represent to things which were not in God's order, thereby subjugating them to political
and financial schemes which have led to their dissatisfaction with, and contempt of, the whole
political system they depend on for their liberties.
In 1810 Congress was acting upon a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which would
have been the 13th. There is a provision in the Constitution which reads, "Clause 8: No Title of
Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust
under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office,
or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
But there is no penalty stated therein for a violations to that provision. That's what the
proposed 13th Amendment addressed. It provided that anyone who did receive any such things would
subsequently lose their Citizenship. This Amendment would have provided a major blow to the
oppressive powers which operated in England, Europe, and the Catholic Church.
In the Declaration of Independence it was declared that King George was a "tyrant," and a list
was made of his tyrannical acts. What is of note here is that King George could not have done those
things alone, but he had to have the support of the courts and of the police powers of the nation.
And this is where the matter concerning the Titles of Nobility and Honour came into play. Those
titles were a part of the English judicial system. The term Esquire, as used by attorneys, is one of
those titles, as is the term Honor, used by judges. But with these titles came certain obligations and
restrictions which were incompatible with the spirit of liberty which the Americans sought to express
in their Constitution. The root of the problem was not a recent development, but reached back
many centuries.
The purpose of drafting and signing the document known as The Magna Charta in 1215 A.D.
was to make the King (the sovereign) answerable to the people and the law, whereas previously he
was free to act independently of the will, and contrary to the good of the people, and was immune
from criminal and civil prosecution. There is nothing in God's laws which grants anyone immunity

82

from prosecution under the law, either civilly or criminally, no matter what their standing. But there
were such laws under the dominion of the Roman Catholic Church. For example, in places where the
Catholic Church has dominion, her priests are immune from secular prosecution, and subject only to
Church authorities. We have recently seen an example of this here. It recently has come to light
that some Catholic priests who have been abusing young boys have been shuffled from place to place
within the church structure in an attempt to hide their deeds, rather than subjecting them
immediately to the civil authorities.
The kings and queens who ruled many of the nations which came under the authority of the
Roman Church did so under the guise of a so-called divine right which was given, or approved, by the
church's own presumed authority. Among the laws promulgated by the church was the notion that
the church elders were immune from civil prosecution, being only answerable to God through His
appointed agents (other elders). This same notion was extended to the rulers of the various nations
which were under the church's dominion. Thus if a ruler or priest had the church's blessing, they could
not be subjected to any law. The Magna Charta changed this somewhat as far as rulers were
concerned. Though it originally was only an agreement between King John and some of his barons,
its principles were carried on to other rulers and nations, and became the fundamental principle of
many a free society.
It wasn't long after the signing of the Magna Charta that judges began to develop the legal
doctrine that they were to be immune from civil suits against them when acting in their official
capacities. Therefore, a judge could abuse his position in favor of the king, or for other purposes, and
be immune from civil damages, and to a limited sense, criminal prosecution. Thus the king was again
able to oppress the people with impunity. And such it was in England and in the Colonies at the time
of the American Revolution. Though the judicial doctrine of judicial immunity was purported to be
necessary to prevent the judges from being abused by outside forces (the rulers, or vexatious
litigants), in the practical application, it has worked out to produce just the opposite effect.
As the power of oppression was manifest through the judicial and police powers of the King
of England, it was important for the liberty-loving Americans to break the power of the English (and
international) legal system in America if they were to be free from governmental abuse. This was to
be the purpose of the jury system. The idea was that a fully informed jury would be able to decide on
matters both of law and facts, with the judge being an impartial person seeing that all things were
fairly presented by all parties to the jury.
But there was a problem between the common people and the professional pleaders - lawyers
and attorneys. Many of the courts in the early Colonies or in the States for decades after the
Revolution did not require one to be a master at law either to aid one in presenting their case, nor to
be a judge. Nobility of character, and a true sense of justice were the desired qualifications. But there
was a conflict after the Revolution as to being fair to the rights of those who held property and
assets but remained loyal to England.
Many had prospered under the English judicial system having advantages through grants and
other favors of the king and the powers behind him. The English courts operated to protect the
rights of those whom the king favored, and to protect the king and others who held differing powers
of influence. In order to make sure that the courts were operating for the benefit of the king and
those with him it was necessary also to allow only those who would plead things after the rules which
would insure that the king's will (and those with him) be sustained. Thus the Bar association was
formed. Such was done in order to be able to control those who would be coming before the courts. If
one were to plead for higher rights and a more pure form of justice than that which the king was of a
mind to allow, that one could be disbarred from practicing law before the king's courts. So it is in
America today.
Only those who meet with the approval of the state bar associations (and the powers behind
them) are allowed to practice before most of the courts in the United States. This brings us back to
the War of 1812, and the proposed 13th Amendment. By accepting a Title of Nobility or Honor
one was in effect swearing allegiance to the English judicial system, and thus to the king. Prior to the

83

outbreak of the war, all but one state necessary to pass the Amendment had ratified it. One of the
first things that the British did during the war was to burn the places where our official records were
kept. In doing so, they were able to destroy the records of precedences in the American judicial
system, and the fact that the full number of the States that had finally ratified the Amendment.
Even though it is presumed today that the Amendment was never properly ratified, it was published
as a part of the Amendments to the Constitution in many official documents into the 1860s.
Today, a judge can act with open malice and evil intent from the bench, and still be immune
from civil liability. There are many cases in which judges have ruled to uphold this perversion of
justice. In Bible times the prophets, priests and elders were the judges. Yet they, themselves, were
not exempt from the prescriptions of the law in any matter. In the Catholic world during the dark
ages it was the priests who would act as judges who exercised the same infallibility and immunity
which is claimed by the Pope. And this is understandable for those same leaders (bishops, etc.) are
the ones who take one of their own, and by a mere 2/3 vote, proclaim that one Pope - one to whom
all must bow and recognize as the "mouthpiece of Christ" - and therefore the ultimate lawgiver.
In 1885, Pope Leo XIII issued an encyclical entitled, "Immortale Dei." In it he declared,
"All Catholics should do all in their power to cause the constitutions of States, and legislation, to be
modeled on the principles of the true Church." The use of the word "States" therein has a broader
context that just the States of America. It includes the States in Europe and elsewhere. The word
"State" has a broader meaning than what is commonly understood.
On its face, there is nothing wrong with that statement of the Pope. But, when taken in its
actual context, that is, that the Roman Catholic Church purports that it is the "true Church," and
that it has "never erred; nor will it ever err," we have the basic evidence of a conspiracy (though, not
a secret one) against the Protestant Americans, and the other lovers of truth and liberty who
founded this country. As to how this open conspiracy was to bring about the desired end, we must
consider one of the means used to further it.
But before we proceed, one last note on this matter of courts and the use of them by leaders
to oppress people. The word hell actually has a legal definition "Hell - The name formerly given in
England to a place under the exchequer chamber, where the king's debtors were confined." Black's
Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition. The legal definition of "Exchequer" is "That department of the
English government which has charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury
department." Ibid. As noted earlier, the king or queen of England is also the head of the Church of
England. Therefore, a debtor to the king in his official capacity is a debtor to the Church of England.
Thus for one become a debtor to the ruler of England, where there is a union of Church and State (a
kingdom "of this world"), he is sent to tax jail - "hell." Though this may seem humorous or ironic,
the truth of these things brings us to the heart of the matter -

THE LOVE OF MONEY

Jesus enjoined his followers to "Render, therefore, unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;
and unto God, the things that are God's." One way this matter has been confused is the fact that
"Caesar" (representing civil government, as distinguished from religious government) has been in the
habit of wanting to be worshipped as God, and of attempting to usurp His prerogatives over the lives
of men. Jesus' statement was made in response to a question regarding the paying of taxes to the
Roman authorities. While it is correct for Christians to pay taxes to the civil governments for things
which are in its legitimate sphere, it must kept in mind that the civil rulers have regularly attempted
to exceed their limitations. Another way that this matter has been confused is that Church leaders
have attempted to use civil taxation to fill their coffers - to take from Caesar to pay God, so to
speak.
After the time of Jesus' resurrection and ascension to heaven, and the rapid growth in the
number of believers among the Jews (Acts 2:41, 47) (which did not sit well with the Jewish leaders),

84

those discipies experienced extreme hardships due to their embracing Jesus' teachings. They suddenly
found themselves being discriminated against in the synagogues (the center points of Jewish life) and
in their ability to earn money, and to buy and sell. Because of this, their love for truth and justice,
and for each other, brought them so close together that it is reported that "all that believed were
together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all
men, as every man had need." Acts 2:44, 45. This gave them a certain amount of financial
independence.
It was this financial independence that was to be most feared by those who opposed them. If
their enemies could not hold them in check by means of financial oppression, there would be no
other way of stopping them except by imprisoning, banishing, or killing them. This same means of
the suppression of true religion by financial oppression and for financial gain has been used
throughout history, and has underlain every form of tyranny that the world has known, as it is
written, "the love of money is the root of all evil" (1 Timothy 6: 10). It is the love of money (and
the wrongful exercise of the power that attends it), that displaces the love of God, the love of
mankind, and of the love of the rest of the creation, and is the "root of all evil."
As the early Christians, by Christ's sacrifice, were being redeemed from the curse of the law
which disobedience had brought upon them, they were entering into the blessings of the law through
the power of the Holy Spirit. They were being transformed from law breakers to law abiders, as it is
written, "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days,
saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their
God, and they shall be my people." Jeremiah 31:33.
Regarding the law, Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets:
I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot
or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break
one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the
scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5: 17-20.
One of God's laws which was not changed when the priesthood was changed (Hebrews 7: 12),
and which was being written on the disciples hearts was this: "If thou lend money to any of my
people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
usury." Exodus 22:25. Usury is interest. The Christians were truly becoming one extended family (as
were the Israelites), and thus all were brethren (Jew and Gentile). Their righteousness in this regards
exceeded that of the "scribes and Pharisees" in that they didn't lend to the poor among them, for
they "had all things common; ... and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
While the Church maintained their love for Christ, they did the same for each other. But as
their faith and practices became polluted with the private opinions of those among them who wanted
the preeminence, so did their love become polluted. The divisions which then arose among them
have led to the sad state of affairs today with the professed Christians lending to each other on
interest through the common banking system. While the average Christian doesn't give much, if any,
thought to the fact that while they have interest-bearing
accounts at banks they are actually
business partners with the bankers who generally charge interest on any money they loan, no matter
who it is lent to.
It is written, "Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of
victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury: Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but
unto thv brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that
thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest to possess it." Deuteronomy 23:19, 20.
So while the Israelites were allowed to take usury (interest) from strangers, and not from
their brothers, the question for Christians is, "Who is my brother?" For the first few years and
decades the Church was predominantly Jewish. Therefore, they were already aware of God's law
concerning the prohibition against taking usury from their brethren, and this principle was upheld in

85

their fellowships until the time when pagan principles and thinking began to corrupt the love they
had for each other. When apostate Church leaders began to disregard God's laws expressed in the Ten
Commandments (and particularly the Sabbath commandment), it was only a matter of time before
they would also disregard to additional laws which were given to guard and demonstrate the Ten
Commandments. It wasn't the pagan things, in and of themselves, which conquered the professed
Christians,
it was plain selfishness
in hand with self-exaltation.
As the different Christian
denominations of today are divided by doctrines and practices (usually at the behest of their leaders)
they have not the true brotherly fellowship which the early Church had when it was one body
operating under God's laws. Thus they have allowed themselves to be made sport of by those
(whether brother or stranger) who disregard God's laws of lending. They are, in effect, repeating the
same error which the Israelites did in Nehemiah's day.
"And there was a great cry of the people and of their wives against their
brethren the Jews. For there were that said, We, our sons, and our daughters, are
many: therefore we take up corn for them, that we may eat, and live. Some also there
were that said, We have mortgaged our lands, vineyards, and houses, that we might
buy corn, because of the dearth. There were also that said, We have borrowed money
for the king's tribute, and that upon our lands and vineyards. Yet now our flesh is as
the flesh of our brethren, our children as their children: and, 10, we bring into bondage
our sons and our daughters to be servants, and some of our daughters are brought unto
bondage already: neither is it in our power to redeem them; for other men have our
lands and vineyards. And I was very angry when I heard their cry and these words.
Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the rulers, and said unto
them, Ye exact usurv, everyone of his brother. And I set a great assembly against
them. And I said unto them, We after our ability have redeemed our brethren the
Jews, which were sold unto the heathen; and will ye even sell your brethren? or shall
they be sold unto us? Then held they their peace, and found nothing to answer."
Nehemiah 5:1-8.
We see therein that in a time of adversity one brother took advantage of the other by
exacting interest from him (and her). The same thing happens all of the time today, though it isn't
so noticeable because there is a middle man - the banker, or other creditor who lends to the brother
on interest. This middle man exacts the interest and then passes it on to his business partners (those
with interest-bearing accounts), so that the partners are somewhat removed from the fact that it is
quite possibly a brother who is in need of the loan, and that will have to pay interest (usury) to those
who just want to profit off of his need. Those partners are also somewhat removed from the reality
of the adverse consequences which will transpire should the debtor default on the loan. So while those
with the interest-bearing accounts turn somewhat of a blind eye to the brother who is in need, they
also do the same to the creditor whose heart becomes hardened when he is given free reign to take
advantage of the needy. They, in effect, demonstrate that they care not either for the true welfare
of the brother who is in need, nor for the salvation of the lender. Here was Nehemiah's solution to
the problem in his day:
" Also I said, It is not good that ye do: ought ye not to walk in the fear of our
God because of the reproach of the heathen our enemies? I likewise, and my brethren,
and my servants, might exact of them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off
this usury. Restore, I pray you, to them, even this day, their lands, their vineyards,
their olivevards, and their houses, also the hundredth part of the money, and of the
corn, the wine. and the oiL that ye exact of them. Then said they, We will restore
them, and will require nothing of them; so will we do as thou sayest. Then I called the
priests, and took an oath of them, that they should do according to this promise.
Also I shook my lap, and said, So God shake out every man from his house, and from

86

his labour, that performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out, and
emptied. And all the congregation said, Amen, and praised the LORD. And the people
did according to this promise." Nehemiah 5:9-13.
But there is also the matter of the Israelites being allowed to take usury from "a stranger." It
is further expressed in the following verses:
"For the LORD thy God blesseth thee, as he promised thee: and thou shalt
lend unto many nations, but thou shalt not borrow; and thou shalt reign over many
nations, but they shall not reign over thee." Deuteronomy 15:6
This blessing, though, is not without conditions
"The LORD shall open unto thee his good treasure, the heaven to give the
rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand: and thou
shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. And the LORD shall make
thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be
beneath; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the LORD thy God, which
I command thee this day. to observe and to do them: And thou shalt not go aside
from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand, or to the
left, to go after other gods to serve them." Deuteronomy 28:12-14.
Although some think that these promises were made only to the bloodline Israelites, such is
not the case. All of the covenant promises also apply to all of the those who are grafted into the
true vine (Romans 11). There are also certain Jews who believe that these promises are theirs, no
matter what their standings are in the Lord's eyes. Many of those do not even practice Judaism.
There are even some who profess to be Jewish so they can claim the promises made to the Israelites,
but who are not. Since they all believe it is God's will to so bless them, they are attempting to reign
over the nations through their monetary policies. And many of the professed Christians go along
with the whole scheme because they are partners with them through the interest they receive.
But what most Christians (Jew and Gentile) fail to realize is that those covenant promises are
for them, and them alone. The only reason why God was intending to bless His faithful people so
that they would be "the head, and not the tail," the lender, and not the borrower, was so that His
righteousness, justice, mercies, graces, and salvation may be made known in the world. But the true
Christians cannot receive this blessing as long as they ignore, and act contrary to, God's law
prohibiting the loaning to their brethren on interest. The same is true regarding all of God's laws as
they apply under the New Covenant. If they continue to turn a deaf ear to His high calling then they
will continue to be used and abused by each other and others besides.
It is written: "A Psalm of David. LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in
thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his
heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a
reproach against his neighbour. In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them
that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not. He that putteth not out his
monev to usurv. nor taketh reward against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be
moved." Ps 15: 1-5.
And, "He that bv usury and uniust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that
will pitv the poor. He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be
abomination. Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his
own pit: but the upright shall have good things in possession." Proverbs 28:8-10.

87

THE POWER OF MONEY

It is our understanding of Bible prophecy that America is headed for a financial crisis which
will financially spoil her and many of the churches. Though the exact events which precipitate the
final collapse are not now known, those circumstances which have made such a thing possible are
definable. It is written, "Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people."
Proverbs 14:34. Jesus said, "I say unto you, That except your righteousness
shall exceed the
righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Matthew 5:20. As we saw in the preceding section, moral financial dealings are elements of the law
which define one's righteousness. Thus for a nation to be exalted by its righteousness its people must
maintain their integrity in money matters as specified in God's law. Should they allow the love of
money to lead them into sin, then reproach is the inevitable consequence. This is especially so in a
nation which professes to be a nation under God, and which trusts in Him. But as not all of the
Americans hold a belief in God, it is incumbent upon the churches to set the standard, by example,
for the rest of the society. Such was the case with the early church, but times have changed as the
leaders of the church changed.
While Christ's Church suffered financial repression by the non-believing Jews at first, and
later from the Roman government in the first few centuries of her existence, things took a radical
change in the fourth century A.D. As the pagan Roman society was decaying, the Christian society
held forth a stabilizing influence which the Roman leaders sought to use to their advantage.
Therefore, the emperor Constantine gave favor to the Church by decreeing that the Christians
property which previously had been confiscated was to be returned unto them.
There was a problem in the Church, though, at that time which became more severe due to
the emperor's decree. There were doctrinal schisms in the Church, as there are today. The Roman
church, and those in league with them, were able to get preeminent recognition from the emperor
over those who were opposed to their presumptions. This unjust recognition enabled them to be
given the property of the opposing factions, and eventually gain civil power to persecute those
Christians who disagreed with their doctrines and practices.
So it was with what eventually became the Roman Catholic Church when they took the civil
reigns after the fall of pagan Rome. Not only did the church laws become the laws of the state, but
the money of the state (taxes) became the property of the church. The rulers of pagan Rome would
regularly use public money to support the various pagan gods and rituals as a means of pacifying the
masses. The emperors would use the taxes to build temples and to furnish and beautify them. Many
craftsman who made idols, and other things used in the pagan rituals had much to lose should pure
Christianity be given free reign in the empire, for pure Christianity has no need of such things.
Therefore, those nominal Christians who took the civil power in the empire used the public money
and opinion to foster the flood of pagan principles which were being cast into the Church, while at
the same time persecuting those who clung to the holy covenant.
During the time when the Catholic Church was gaining supremacy over the truly orthodox
Christians, and was separating themselves from "everything Jewish" (the fourth century onward) is
was debated whether or not Christians should be able to charge interest (usury) from their brethren. It
was generally decided that they should maintain the custom of not charging interest on their
brethren. Yet over the following centuries that divinely appoint statute was also set aside, thereby
further breaking the brotherly bonds which distinguished the apostolic Church.
In most of Europe prior to the time of the Protestant Reformation (the 1500s), no one
could coin money without the sanction of the Catholic Church. At the same time, some of the
goldsmiths who would turn raw gold into coins had their own scheme going on. They learned that
they could give people certificates for the gold which they were holding because the people could not
easily carry around much of the heavy gold. Some of them would give out more certificates than
they had gold. Today this is known as "fractional reserve banking," and is widely practiced in

88

America. This was used as a means of stealing political power from people. Even though many of
the goldsmiths were non-Christian Jews (as distinguished from Christian Jews), the Catholic rulers
would profit from them by means of agreements, and would tolerate or even encourage their
practices.
For example, if the rulers of England (or any other country) needed money to finance a war,
the gold bankers would lend the country credit which they created on paper with the stroke of a pen,
and demand gold as the means of repayment, with interest (usury). Soon the bankers owned the real
wealth of the countries, even though they didn't necessarily take actual possession of it. Sometimes
it was more to their advantage to allow the people of the countries to falsely believe that what they
had was actually their own. But regardless of whether those who engaged in immoral financial
practices were Jew or Gentile, it is the fact that those who professed to follow Christ also
participated (and continue to participate) in the schemes which has brought about many of the
financial crisis which have plagued the western world. Were the true Christians not divided by
doctrines and practices they would be "the head, and not the tail," the lender, and not the borrower,
as God has promised His people.
The Protestant Reformation began to change the situation in Europe when the protesting
countries began to coin their own money. The Protestants, seeking to be more honest with God, and
in their dealings with their fellow man, had a disdain for the dishonest practice of the money/power
grabbers. Whenever there was an attempt in a Protestant country to make their monetary system
honest, a war or some other form of disruption (assassination, etc.) would occur to stop the reform.
When the different States of America became united under the national Constitution, our
founding fathers were well aware of the monetary problems in Europe and England, and wanted to
avoid them here. Therefore, our Constitution only allows Congress and the states to make gold and
silver coins as legal "Tender in Payment of Debts." This was designed to make it impossible to create
money out of thin air. But the money powers of Europe, and some of their American counterparts
were not happy about this.
Over 100 years ago Ellen G. White stated that soon all of the money in the world would be in
the control of only a few men. Such it is in America and the world today. Our currency is no longer
redeemable in gold or silver, for all of our reserves of gold and silver are under the control of the
international bankers, and not the American people. It is not merely the accumulation
of vast
wealth which motivates those who pursue such a course, but it is also the desire to wield a power to
silence those who would expose their sins. 1 Peter 3 :8-13.
Those Americans who founded the Republic of California in ] 849 put a clause in their
original constitution banning banks from there, and allowing only "depositories" for gold and silver.
This was changed about 30 years later when their constitution
was rewritten under highly
questionable
circumstances.
I am only pointing out the situation in California because many
Americans who settled there had seen the abuses which existed in the older, eastern states, and did
not want to repeat them there. Another reason was the strong Catholic influence which has been
exerted there due to the Catholic Church's sway over the Mexican people and the early Catholic
missions there. Many of those who settled California were aware of the banking problems in the
Catholic countries in Europe and elsewhere, and did not want the problems to be repeated there.
In the Roman Catholic Church it is the leaders thereof who appoint the priests. The laity
have no say in the matter. In California, the judges are now, and have been for a couple of decades or
more, appointed by the Governor, whereas they used to be elected by the people. Most of the
Governors of California over the last 30 years (or more), have been Catholics (Roman, or Eastern
Orthodox). One governor, Jerry Brown, was/is a Jesuit priest. The Jesuit priests are foremost in the
Roman Catholic Church's efforts to undermine the Protestant reformation. Therefore, the Catholic
Church has been able control the direction that state has been going for a long time. This is
especially true regarding taxation and banking.
A few years ago, while California was in an economic recession, the Bank of America (which
was originally known as the Bank of Italy) announced it highest earnings ever. So it continues today.

89

Though the founders of that bank supposedly started the bank to mainly help the Italian immigrants
(who were almost wholly Catholic), those bankers and their investors have gotten rich by charging
interest on those who were supposedly their Christian brethren. The same may be said of Protestant
bankers who have charged interest on their brethren. In this sense, those certain Jewish bankers who
have been blamed for so much of the world's ills have nothing on their professed Christian
counterparts.
During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln issued some U.S. Treasury Notes (known as "green
backs," because of their color) which were based on the American people's ability to stand behind
them, rather than on credit borrowed from the bankers. It is no secret that he had a great disdain for
immoral banking practices. Some national and international bankers didn't like losing control over
our money supply, so Lincoln was assassinated, and the green backs were quickly taken out of
circulation.
At the end of the 19th century, the government of America had such a surplus of money
from basic excise taxes that we did not know what to do with it. There was, at that time, no tax on a
person's compensation for their labor in any sector of society. Many people around the world had
the impression that the streets of America were lined with gold. Today, not one cent that the IRS
collects goes to running the basic government. All of it goes into the Federal Reserve banks to pay
the national debt which is owed to that privately owned banking consortium. The basic government
is financed by means of the excises taxes (duties, etc.) it collects. But most of the social programs
are funded by borrowed funds which the government pays interest on.
Just after the tum of the century, some of the bankers (national and international) caused a
monetary panic whereby America's financial security was made to appear to be on shaky ground.
Therefore, in 1913, through devious means, some members of Congress voted in the Federal
Reserve Act, which took control of our currency out of the hands of Congress and the Treasury (and
thus the American people), and put it in the hands of those unscrupulous bankers who will not
acknowledge God's laws of honesty and justice (especially those which are summed up in the words,
"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you."). The Federal Reserve (whose "notes" are
the only currency now in circulation in America, and which are no longer redeemable in gold or
silver) is not a governmental agency, but rather a private corporation which is a consortium of
national and international banks. They do not even attempt to deny this fact, but they certainly are
not attempting to make this fact known to many of the American people who lack this knowledge.
It certainly is not taught in most public schools.
Not long after, those Federal Reserve bankers gained control of our nation's currency they
caused the money to be greatly inflated which affected the stock market. Then after things were set
in place they caused the stock market to crash by withholding some 8 billion dollars in loans from
some of America's most important companies. Thus began the Great Depression during which many
were unable to earn a living. This allowed the Federal Reserve bankers to foreclose on numerous
loans on businesses, homes, farms, and even smaller banks.
Prior to that time, a young man or woman could work for about five years in order to earn
enough money to pay for a home for his or her family. Now one has to pay their monthly mortgage
for 25 or 30 years for a home (usually paying around four times the amount of what it cost to build
the house - all of the rest going to the bankers as interest on the loan). But besides the interest on
the loan, the bankers profit another way. They know that the homes are on average sold or
refinanced every five years, thereby bringing them extra income in refinance charges.
In 1933, things were changed so that our currency was no longer exchangeable for gold, as it
had been previously. This was due to the fact that the federal government (which incorporated in
1781) declared bankruptcy. Since then, everything we have has been pledged to payoff
the
unpayable national debt. Shortly before John Kennedy was assassinated, he had the Treasury issue
around four billion dollars worth of U. S. Treasury Notes, which were in competition with the Federal
Reserve Notes. After he was killed, Lyndon Johnson immediately took them out of circulation. In
1964, things were again changed so that our currency was no longer exchangeable for silver. Now,

90

our currency, i.e., Federal Reserve "Notes," are only evidences of debt and credit, with nothing of
real value to back them. When President Ronald Reagan first met with the members of the Federal
Reserve Board it was reported publicly that he stated to the effect that they were the most selfish
men he had ever met.
Today, all of our domestic welfare programs, foreign aid programs, and even the social
security system are funded on credit, many of which we pay interest on. In many of those programs
the civil governments (the modern day Caesars) are attempting to do what the churches should be
doing. They are also demanding the worship which God should receive for creating our desires of
benevolence towards the poor, the elderly, the parentless, etc. God has given to the churches the
responsibility to care for the sick, needy, and elderly among themselves, and those with whom they
come in contact. It is the church's glory to respond in God-given love to the needs of humanity. Yet
most of the leaders of the churches not only do not accept or preach the truth of these things, but
actually act in a manner which shows that they believe that they are the ones who are to be the sole
beneficiaries of the congregations benevolence.
The civil governments are actually forcing many people who do not have the personal
convictions to help the needy to give financial aid to people and countries whether or not they want
to give the money to them. This causes resentment towards the government in those people. God
never forces anyone to be benevolent, but instead teaches that benevolence is the root of happiness
for the giver and is a fundamental principle in godly living. Instead of the congregations using their
money to help their own poor, sick, and elderly, many of them are using it to build bigger and more
elaborate buildings, and in supporting the lavish lifestyles of their ministers or themselves, leaving
many of those duties to be done by the civil governments or private companies who operate for
profit. In this regard, many so-called Protestant ministers are catching up with the Catholic
hierarchy in hoarded wealth and in the oppression and neglect of the poor.
It is apparent than most of the leaders of the churches prefer to have their congregations
linked up with unbelievers in an insurance pyramid scheme like Social Security rather than having
them establish their own self sustaining welfare program where they are free from political
corruption in this matter. They are attempting to make America (and eventually the world) Christ's
kingdom "of the world." But as Christ's kingdom is a theocracy, and not a democratic republic, they
will have to do away with the present form of government in order to set up an image of the world
under the papacy (Revelation
17:3), with the elders (bishops) of the current Sunday keeping
denominations as the controlling forces - an American papacy, as it were.
While the leaders of the Catholic churches have failed to promote the true love among their
congregations whereby they would come to state of brotherly love, unity and fellowship which the
apostolic church attained when they had all things in common and gave their all for each other, for
Christ's sake (Ac 2:44, Ac 4:32), they have been ardent in selling their services - whether it be the
selling of indulgences in the middle ages by the Catholic hierarchy or their profit-making schemes of
charging money for saying Masses for souls purported to be in Purgatory, lighting candles while
donating money for prayers to be answered, selling of icons, images, and crosses (many of which are
blessed by a priest to give them special import, even though the one blessing them may be morally
corrupt. Add to these their bingo games and what you have is a hierarchy which profits off of the
laity, with the laity getting little in return. It is not that one's giving should be done for a reward
other than a "well done" from the Lord, but it is giving which is urged upon them by superstition,
fear, and emotion.
The same is generally true of the Protestants, and especially those known as Evangelicals.
They have their money raising revivals, praise-a-thons, lotteries, bazaars, and numerous special little
items which they give to people who give them money. While the Catholic hierarchy have their
expensive and impressive apparel, the popular Evangelical leaders generally have their own lavish
clothing to impress people. Thus the widow's mite (Matthew 12:42, 43) is taken to glorify the pride
of the ministers.

91

---0--~
This bring us back to the matter at hand - the warfare against the Branch Davidian Seventh
Day Adventists. As mentioned earlier, Victor Houteff (the founder of the Davidian association) had
established our own bank. As the association grew, so would the functions of the bank. It was run on
Biblical principles, and people who eventually came to us for loans would receive much better
treatment than if they had gone to those big corporations who are only into banking for mere profit
reasons. Actually, we had a complete program which would make our church members completely
independent of the government social programs, and the self-interested bankers who disregard God's
laws of love in financial matters.
In this time of the restitution of all things the "root of all evil" (the love of money) is to be
uprooted from the hearts of the saints. In their return to "the faith which was once delivered unto
the saints" (Jude 1:3), it is God's intention to supply His people with perfect order in all things,
including financial matters. Therefore it is imperative that God's people have the ability to do right
with their money. As it is now, not only are Christians lending to each other with usury through the
common banks, but are also unknowingly investing in things which are not in God's order, and
possibly even specifically antagonistic to the work of the Gospel. Though most banks, by their
charters, are required to allow people to have non-interest bearing accounts if they choose, very few
take advantage of this provision of law so that their hands would be clean from the pollution of
greed.
As stated previously, the Lord showed Victor Houteff, the leader of the Davidians, that we
were not to rely on the government to take care of us, or to do our duties towards the poor for us.
Therefore, we give a second tithe which goes into a trust fund for the care of our poor, and the sick
or elderly among us who cannot afford to pay for their care themselves. In 1962, we had almost a
half million dollars in the trust fund for about 2700 members. This was a threat to the
credit/profit-based
governmental social programs, and private for-profit insurance companies. Not
that we then had a huge sum of money, but, rather, that we had the Biblical program which, if left
unchecked, would soon have produced a viable alternative to the socialistic governmental programs.
Keep in mind that that second tithe money was raised among a relatively small number of people
who strictly confined their work within the SDA Church (which at that time only numbered around
one million members worldwide), and was initiated during the Great Depression.
This was also embarrassing, and even threatening to the vast majority of churches who do
not care for their own general membership (especially the Seventh Day Adventists). It may be easily
observed that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church uses the money they collect for themselves, with
but little concern for the individuals of their congregations. Most of the nuns take vows of poverty,
and even those of them who take jobs teaching in public schools give their wages to the order to
which they belong (which ends up under the control of the leading priest or bishop). In general, the
leaderships of the Protestant churches follow similar practices in regards to their own clergy.
Although a few other congregations, such as the Mormons, have their own types of welfare
systems, they do not hold to the high standards of justice and fairness as do we. This may seem
boastful, but it is simply the truth. This is especially true in regards to fair and equal dealing with
women, and racial minorities. Our fair treatment toward women and minorities was also seen as a
threat to those churches who would misuse the Bible to oppress women and minorities, and consume
their money on their self-indulgent, self-exalting programs. What is seen as even more threatening
to many groups is our stand against secret societies and occultic practices. Those who associate
themselves with the Masonic fellowships and other secret societies, witchcraft, or satanism (or,
Lucifer worship, as some of them prefer to call it) in their varied forms cannot stand our
Judeo-Christian principles - i.e., the law of God which demands above-board methods in all dealings.
Our stand against secret societies such as the Masons takes on particular significance in this
case considering that until fairly recently Waco was the only place where the Masonic order would
hold it annual meetings. While many see the Masonic order as being benign, others are aware that it

92

has more than one face. There can be no doubt but that they hold an opinion of their self
importance which is not open to criticism. Being a secret society, with oaths and initiations, its true
nature is not readily discernable. But what can be clearly understood is that organization is extremely
powerful, and reaches into many facets of society. The general Adventists objection to it is that it
fosters intemperance and works counter to the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit through its
merriment, feasting, and drinking. Therefore, it should be understandable why they would not like a
group such as the Branch which, by preaching the straight truth of the Gospel, could have such a
detrimental effect on their organization, especially in the place where they hold their annual parties.
Added to all the above reasons why many would wish to silence us, is our teachings regarding
the prophecies concerning the end of the present age, and the establishment of Christ's never-ending
kingdom. Many churches are teaching that there is going to be a "secret rapture" during which the
faithful (or a portion of them) will be taken from the earth before a time of great trouble which is to
come on the earth before Christ returns. The variations on this theme are too many to elaborate on.
The same may be said regarding their various opinions on the timing and nature of the setting up of
Christ's kingdom. What is of note about this point is that the doctrine of the secret rapture came
into being around 1850, the time when the Adventists were receiving clearer light on the nature of
the cleansing of the heavenly Sanctuary, and the trials and true deliverance of God's people as they
go through said time of trouble on earth and are delivered into Christ's kingdom.
Many are so determined to be regarded as credible in their expositions on prophetic writings
that they are acting in such a manner as to produce certain events which will fit into their portrayal
of things, even though those things are not what God has in mind as the true fulfillment of the
prophecies. For example, though it is clearly prophesied in the Bible that a remnant of all of the
tribes of Israel are to return to the promised land and possess the land forever, the fact that the
United Nations created the State of Israel, does not mean that those prophecies have met their
fulfillment by those actions. Even some of the most devout Jews do not find the actions of the
Zionists which brought about the United Nations actions as being the fulfillment of the prophecies
concerning the remnant who finally inherit the land.
For example, even among devout Jews some do not see that the return which they are now
experiencing in Palestine, and the current methods which are being employed to extend their borders
are after God's order because a large portion of those identifiable Jews who have gone to Israel are
not really religious and may not even believe in God. According to the Holy Scriptures it is only the
remnant of the seed of Abraham who exercise faith in the Messiah and His ways that are to receive
the promised inheritance of the land. Unbelievers have no part in the covenant promises regardless
of their blood line, and never have had such in the past as sacred history has well shown. And, as a
matter of fact, the Scriptures declare that the unfaithful among them will yet be punished in their
own land for their hypocrisy (Isaiah 10:5-12). Furthermore, at the time when those prophecies
concerning the faithful remnant are fulfilled it is written that "No weapon that is formed against
thee shall prosper" (Isaiah 54: 17). Such is not the case there today as terrorism is wreaking havoc on
Israeli society. Please read the whole of Isaiah 54.
The real reason why some wish to have it appear that the current return to Israel is the
fulfillment of God's prophecy, is that they are setting the stage for what they want to call "the
battle of Armageddon." This is so, because they want to set up a counterfeit of Christ's kingdom
after the war which they are about to cause. Soon the nations are going to stop fighting each other,
so that they can concentrate their actions against God's true people who have the pure truth. There
is most definitely to be a kingdom set up over which Christ will be the absolute ruler (Daniel 2:34,
35, 45), and which will extend peace over the earth as the waters cover the sea (Isaiah 11 :9;
Habakkuk 2:14), but not all nations will choose to be a part of it (Zechariah 14:16-19).
At the same time, and in opposition to Christ's kingdom will be the atheistic scarlet colored
beast (Revelation 17:3), which at first will be under the guidance of Babylon the Great (false
religion), but which will eventually unseat her and spoil her, and then continue on without her
(Revelation 17: 1-18:24). The underlying principles of the counterfeit and those of the true will be as

93

diametrically opposed as are black and white. Sweet love, peace, truth, justice, fairness, righteousness,
temperance, and joy will characterize the true, while, every form deception and oppression will
characterize the counterfeit. There will be much light and power in the counterfeit, but no sweet
love, joy, and peace. The counterfeit must appear to be the true, or else it would be of no use.
The counterfeit will also have its "signs and lying wonders" (2 Thessalonians 2:9), false
miracles (Revelation 13:14; 16:14), and false prophets (Revelation 19:20,20:10).
Christ has said,
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? ...
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." Matthew 7: 16, 20. We have also been given a
standard whereby we may differentiate between Christ's righteousness and its counterfeit.
It is
written, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because
there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20.
Those who understand the principles for which we stand, and God's intention to greatly bless
those who tum from the commandments and traditions of men, and do His will as revealed in the
Bible, believe that they have much to lose (though they really do not) should we go forward
unmolested. And as they cannot refute our positions in an open and candid manner, they have to use
their behind the scenes forces to blacken our characters and name, and steal our property. At one
point the U.S. Government tried to get the lawful owner of Mt. Carmel to pay for the clean up of
the place after the 1993 conflict. This in spite of the fact that the whole mess was caused by their
deciding to raid Koresh's compound rather than arresting him alone off of the property as they could
have.

The Mark of the Beast

This bring us back to the mark of the beast, and more particularly how it will be brought into
being, and how this matter relates to the situation with Koresh. As stated before, the general
Adventist belief is that the civil enforcement of Sunday keeping will be the mark of the beast. But it
is not the atheists or pagans who will be foremost in promoting the civil enforcement of Sunday
laws, but instead it will be those who profess to be followers of Him who said, "My kingdom is not of
this world." (John 18:36), and who also said regarding God's law (including the seventh day Sabbath
commandment), "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in
no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. Though not all of the matter was
understood in Ellen White's day, the underlying conflicting principles were known, and have been
more clearly manifested since her times. The basic principle of the beast's mark is man's ways
independent of God's ways. This will have to have an effect on most all phases of life and society in
order for it to be able to be enforced so "that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark,
or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Revelation 13: 17).
In 1976 Ben Roden published a tract entitled, <The
Energy Crisis and The Sunday
Sacredness.>>> In that tract he quoted news articles which showed that there was an energy crisis
coming which would lead to a prohibition on driving on Sundays. Though the immediate situation in
the 1970's is past, the stage is being set for a repeat of that energy crisis on a much larger scale. Of
course, this will be used as the first step to the enforcement of Sunday keeping ..
In 1978 Ben and Lois Roden published another tract entitled, <The
Master Plan for
America, As Seen Through The Eyes of the News>>>. The focus of the tract is the resurgence of
Catholic thinking, and of the Pope's dominance in the so-called Christian societies. One thing that
was pointed out therein was Senator Ted Kennedy's (a Catholic) womb to tomb health care bill,
entitled The Health Act for All Americans. Though the bill did not pass at that time, its supporters
are still trying to bring in that socialistic program whereby the government will act as overseers of
all facets of the welfare of people.
Hidden within that bill was a rider which provided for the government to evaluate mental
health, and particularly mental health in regards to religious thinking. If one held religious ideas

94

which were not thought to be healthy, or which may be thought to lead to some illegal activity, that
person could be placed into a mental health facility for their own good, and for the good of society,
all without due process of law. According to the provisions in the plan, The National Council of
Churches will be given the power to establish guidelines to determine what is healthy in religious
thinking. All of the churches which make up that organization are Sunday keepers. Sabbath keepers
are not allowed to be a part of it.
A few years back the situation involving Jim Jones and the mass suicide of his followers in the
People's Temple would certainly fall within the purview of that law. But that incident was not
enough to convince enough Americans to create thought police to evaluate religious thinking. The
incident with Koresh has really added fuel to that unholy fire.
Almost immediately after the 1993 shootout, standoff, and fire, certain legislators were
demanding laws which authorized government agencies to investigate and evaluate and act against
religious thinking which certain others could determine as being harmful to society. Such was
attempted under the guise of the threat of "domestic terrorism." There were still enough right
thinking legislators to hold back that forthcoming darkness at that time. The whole episode with
Koresh was a setup from the beginning in order to not only blacken the reputation of the Branch
Davidian Seventh Day Adventists and to destroy the true religious revival which is to precede the
second coming of Christ, but also to set a precedent and create the appearance of the need for
religious thought police to prevent the needless loss of life which was blamed on Koresh's teachings.
What is of note here is that Koresh's teachings and practices would have not caused the
results they did, had those who were acting under the guise of the government not acted as they did.
One action precipitated the other. Just as Koresh had led his followers into a certain mind set, so had
the leaders of the law enforcement agencies. Each was as radical as the other. Each had a certain
disregard of the humanity involved. Each had given up a certain amount of their wills to their leaders
whose orders they willingly followed. Each side was also acting on disinformation. They could have
arrested him off of the property had they really wanted to, but they would not even try. But rather
than trusting in wisdom, they chose to trust in weapons and force. I'm sure that many of the families
of those law enforcement officers who were wounded or killed would have preferred to have had
them first try an alternative method of arresting Koresh. Though armed force may be justified as a
last resort, it is another matter when it is freely used without exhausting any alternatives. The
kingdom of heaven is not for those with the "shoot first and ask questions later" mentality. "Then
said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword." Matthew 26:52.
In 1981 Lois published a tract entitled, <Awake,
Don't Go To Sleep>>>
This tract
addressed the resurgence of Catholicism,
especially among nominal Protestants. At the time,
President Ronald Reagan had appointed a presidential envoy to the Vatican. Over the preceding
decades there had been many heated debates on the matter of the U.S. government's attitude towards
the Vatican, which had left that questionable position unfilled. This position of envoy did not require
Congressional approval, as would have an Ambassador. Only two other presidents had ever sent an
envoy to the Vatican, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman, both under strong public protest. This
appointment was significant because he was sending an envoy to a church. No one has sent an envoy
to any other church. Over 90 years before then, Ellen White had said this type of action on the part
of nominal Protestants was coming in order to solidify their error of enforcing Sunday laws.
In 1982 Lois published another tract called <Church
and State - Keep them Separate>>>
This tract shed light on the grassroots movements which were active in trying to establish America
as a "Christian Nation" with the ability to define Christianity, and to punish dissenters from that
legislated standard. It also pointed out the proposed central place of the Pope in defining the
standard. Though the names and faces may have changed with the passing of time, the principles
which are acted upon are the same - making an image of the world of the past under the Papacy
(Revelation 13: 14-1 7).
These various tracts were widely distributed .. Though the stem of the tide to rejoin Church

95

and State as an image of what was in the dark ages has been held back, somewhat, it nevertheless
continues to beat at the doors of America through the nominal Christians. Recent developments in
such arenas as school vouchers, and tax money going to faith-based organizations only go to show
that the warfare continues. A good example of this is President Clinton. Though he was raised as a
Baptist, and continues to profess to be one, he was influence heavily by Catholic Jesuit priests while
he attended Georgetown University. He was so willing to compromise his religious heritage to make
concessions to Catholic ways that not only was he elected to be president of his freshman class at a
Catholic University, but he also not long ago addressed the Pope as "Holy Father." Such an action
was diametrically opposed to the traditional Baptist stand on the Papacy. Giving common respect to
someone in the Pope's position is truly the act of a Christian, but acquiescing to the principle which
gives flattering titles to men (Job 32:21, 22) is a different matter.
Yet such is the spirit which is at war with the principle of righteousness which the Branch
message and movement entail. That is, the spirit of ungodly compromise. It was seen in the way
people took advantage of a bad situation to dramatize and falsify the true nature and character of the
Branch. Those who knew the truth of the matter (Koresh being an aberration of the true Church)
suppressed this knowledge in order to gain something they presumed to be an advantage. Many were
ensnared in the trap, and failed in their personal vows to be truthful and fair. Such things are never
without negative consequences.
---0--There is yet another aspect to this controversy. That being our stand on the place of natural
remedies and methods in healing the sick. While we acknowledge
that there are times and
circumstances which may call for the use of drug medicines and other common medical procedures,
we also strictly hold to the position that the vast majority of ailments can be cured by changes of
lifestyle, and through the use of the simple thing which God has placed on the earth. Among those
things are the intelligent use of herbs, pure water, fresh air, and sunshine, in conjunction with proper
exercise, diet, and rest. For information on these things please see <The "I'm Being Religious

about Eating" Diet>>>

In the 1930s, the American Medical Association, which consists solely of allopaths (doctors
who rely almost exclusively on drug medicines and surgical procedures) gained political dominance
over naturopaths (those who rely almost exclusively on herbal remedies, and natural cures such as
hydrotherapy, massage, etc., and surgery only in last resort situations). One of the biggest arguments
the allopaths use against herbal remedies is that one does not know the actual strength of the herbs,
as they vary due to the many factors in their growing, gathering, and processing. Yet one of the
biggest problems with drug medicines is that they are really killing many people because they are
being given doses that are too large. This happens all of the time in hospitals, and the death is
simply attributed to "complications."
Not only are overdoses quite common, but many who use drug medicines suffer from their
side effects, and from harmful interactions with other drugs they take. A great many drug medicines
are only synthesized versions of things which exist in nature, but which can produce much greater
financial profits in synthetic versions. Yet, because of the political advantage the big drug companies
have, government programs use the people's money to support the use of drug medicines, and the
research which produces them, while those who would use the simpler, less harmful herbs are left to
pay for them themselves. The average doctor has no more knowledge of true nutritional needs and
healing than does the average lawyer of constitutional law, which in both cases only constitutes a
very small percentage of their training.
The problem with government controlled health care lies not in the principle that men can
and should work together for their mutual benefit, but in the fact that there are powers which want
to dominate the matter that are neither truly helpful nor Godly. That is, the programs and methods
employed are designed to fill the pockets of those who promote them, and to satisfy their ruthless

96

ambitions to dominate men's consciences and wills, and have themselves recognized as the saviors of
the world. It is not uncommon for allopaths to not only bad mouth those who promote viable
alternative healing methods used by naturopaths, but to send their patients to the grave because they
have discouraged them from even trying the alternative. It wasn't long ago that one of America's
leading physicians widely broadcast his opinion that one could get all the nutrition he needed from
the average fast food restaurant. Yet recently one man documented on film his attempt to do
exactly that for thirty days, and had only the report of numerous ailments to present as the results.
The world which these so-called health professionals seek to preserve from change (the one
they want to save) is the one in which they can foster the lust of the eyes, the lusts of the flesh, and
the pride of life (I John 2: 16). For example, it is an Adventist belief and teaching that much of that
which is called mental illness is caused by intemperance - whether it be in matters of dietary
practices, sexual habits, blind ambition in business, wrong entertainment choices, or even improper
sleeping habits. Not the least bit behind these are the problems caused by consciences smitten by the
guilt of sin. It is also our belief that in order to correct these mental problems that the causes must be
addressed first - sin (whether it be spiritual or physical). But the common solution in the general
medical community today is to use various means to mask or eliminate the symptoms without
addressing the true cause. Of course, such solutions bring profit to the pockets of their promoters
(the love of money being at the root of all evil), and exalt them in the eyes of those who in
ignorance trust in them.
The most prominent of those powers which encourage such practices are the patented
medicine companies and those unrighteous doctors who rely on them so heavily rather than
addressing the real causes of diseases, and the many simple remedies which are available in nature.
This is not to impugn the motives of all doctors who freely prescribe drug medications, for many are
simply doing what they were wrongly educated to do, and/or what they believe they are limited by
law to do, or by the insurance companies which pay them. It is not that there are not circumstances
where drug medicines are helpful in an emergency or in last resort situations, but the problem lies in
that drug medicines are generally used when they are not called for. For example, a study done in the
past few years came to the conclusion that in as many as 70% of the cases where antibiotics were
being prescribed they were useless for the condition they were supposed to be helping. That is, the
problems were viral, not bacterial, and so the antibiotics had no real effect on the illness. Yet the
doctors, thinking to be heroes and saviors, prescribe the drugs which did no real good, and which
could have devastating side effects.
Along with the improper prescriptions for antibiotics are the use of vaccines and flu shots.
These are used to combat viruses which are communicated largely through flesh food sources. The
polio vaccine has been credited with practically eliminating polio in America. Yet few consider that
at the same time the vaccine was being widely distributed great improvements were being made in the
way slaughter houses handled the contaminated meats, and the way that diseases were being treated in
the animals before they were slaughtered. And few are aware of the thousands of people each year
who would have contracted the disease by means of the vaccination they received. But as the viruses
which live in the animals become immune to the drugs which are given to them to control them,
stronger drug are used, and these themselves are passed on to the consumer of the flesh, causing
other problems.
The same situation exists with flu shots. Sometimes whole communities get the flu from a
common contaminated meat source, yet wonder why such is so. So rather than addressing the real
cause of the problem, the drug companies promote their flu shots, and each year profit off of the
peoples' ignorance of the cause and effects of what they are being given to eat.
The blame cannot be wholly laid at the feet of the doctors and drug companies, for the
patients themselves have not taken the preventative measures they may have, or are not interested
in altering their practices and habits, but rather are only looking for a quick fix of the immediate
problem. It is worthy of note that doctors often die of the same types of maladies as their patients
because they live the same injurious lifestyles. They are not immune to self-induced cancers, liver

97

problems, heart problems, or the many other ailments caused by intemperance.

Not only are drug medicines used when they are not needed, but they are used because they
have a higher profit margin for the hospitals than the use of a simple means of curing problems. For
example, many people with fevers will lay in hospitals for days being given drugs to reduce the fever
rather than being given the less harmful cold water applications and natural means to cause them to
pass off the impurities in their systems which are causing the fever, and which produce much more
rapid and beneficial results, but are more labor intensive. Then following the use of the drugs the
patient finds that they have to recover from the harm done to them by those drugs. This is
especially true with oral antibiotics which destroy the good bacteria in the digestive tract as they pass
through the body on their way to attack some bad bacteria.
Similar profit-motivated
practices exist in nursing homes. Elderly people who are weakened
by some malady, are given meats which they cannot even chew properly instead of other types of
foods which contain the essential nutrients whereby proteins are produced and which they could eat
with greater ease. Add to this the fact that those elderly, and others who are weak, generally will take
longer to take their meals, but they are not given enough time to eat because the attendants aren't
given the time to sit with them for the length of time that they require to eat in their condition. So
as an alternative to giving them foods which they can chew, and the proper amount of time to eat it,
the nursing homes will just put a feeding tube down their throat or into their stomach, and an
intravenous tube to give them some form of nutrition. But in using feeding tubes they greatly
increase the chances of developing additional maladies because there is really no substitute for
someone mixing their food with their own saliva before it goes into the stomach.
These things are not only done in nursing homes, but are also a common practice in most
hospitals because the high wages and profits which the investors in the hospitals and the doctors
demand for themselves could not be had without higher costs to the patients than if the natural ways
and means followed. Though it would be better for the patient to pay for the less expensive
attendant to properly feed them than it would be for them to pay the high priced specialist to treat
the complications which come from the improper care, such is rarely done. It is not in vain that it is
written, "They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful
lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the root of all evil:
which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with
many sorrows." 1 Timothy 6:9, 10
What is more significant is that most M.D.s have very little or no training in the true science
of nutritional needs and dietary practices. But seeing how much of their training has been subsidized
by the drug companies, it is no wonder why so many doctors place such little importance on the
simple sciences of nature. The same is true in the psychological field. Drugs are used to mask the
symptoms, while the causes go untreated. It is notable that in Revelation 18:23 we read of Babylon
the Great, "thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations
deceived." The Greek word which is translated "sorceries" is pharmakeia, which is where we get our
word "pharmaceutical." With this in mind it is no wonder why so many drugs are being touted as
medical miracles.
---0With the foregoing in mind, it should be clear to see why some people would desire that the
things involving Koresh would come out just the way they did, including the gross misrepresentations
of the true Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist church. It is not that we merely point out the
errors of others, but rather that we are presenting people with the truth and with a viable alternative
to the confusion and weakness which attend erroneous doctrines. While there are many who hold
forth portions of the truth, God has purposed to bring all of His people into one movement by
putting all of His present truth therein. The apostle Paul said,
"Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the

98

same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the
same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by
them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that
every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ
divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" 1 Corinthians
1: J 0-13.
His question was rhetorical. Of course Christ was not divided, yet those who professed to be
his followers evidently were. Today Christ's professed followers are divided into numerous factions,
each one founded on the teachings of this or that man or woman, all claiming to base their theories
on His very word, the Bible. As the living Word of God, Christ, Himself was subjected to abuse, so
also has His written word been subjected to the same abuse through the many translations currently
available.
Many of the newer translations
are themselves
not even true translations,
but mere
paraphrases of the King James version. Even the King James version, which was fairly true to the
ancient manuscripts which were available at the time it was made, has many inaccuracies in it which
are the products of the private opinions of the translators, and which reflect the errors common in
their days. That version is also know as the Authorized version, because it was authorized by King
James 1. That is, the work of the translation was set in motion by the authorization of the king. But
he died before it was finished. Thus he never actually put his stamp of approval upon the final
product, nor would it have made any difference to its accuracy if he had.
What is probably one of most obvious inaccuracies therein is the use of the word "Easter" in
Acts 12:4, where we read, "... intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people." The Greek
manuscripts contain the word "pasha" in that verse. Everywhere else "pasha" appears it is translated
correctly as "Passover." So why did the King James translators agree, contrary to their own stated
rules and procedures, to purposely mistranslate "pasha" as "Easter?"
The most obvious answer is that at the time the KN was made the Christians were keeping
Easter and not Passover, and the text in question referred to a time after Christ's resurrection, which,
according to the thinking of the day, meant that the Christians were no longer observing Passover in
any way, but rather were keeping a feast known as "Easter." This thinking had its roots in the
anti-Jewish sentiments which pervaded the professed church in the centuries when paganistic
thinking entered the church, and pagans were given benefits by the Roman government for joining
the church.
Though the matter of pasha/Easter is one very obvious inaccuracy, others which affect more
complex doctrines are not so easily identifiable because the leaders of today are continuing to
propagate the same erroneous thinking which led to their existence. Many speak of the infallibility
of God's written word, when in reality what they really mean is that their interpretation of their
chosen translation is infallible. Even when there have been actual revisions made of the KN, and
certain errors therein corrected, additional errors have been introduced by changing language which
was already more true to the ancient manuscripts in order to discredit a doctrine which is not held in
esteem by the revisers.
The Catholics have their versions which reflect their doctrines, and which tend to negate the
Protestant doctrines. The different Protestant denominations
have their revisions which tend to
bolster their distinct doctrines while negating those which they reject. Yet others, such as Baptists
cling to the KJV because they have built up what they believe to be solid doctrines on the shaky
foundation of the mistranslations therein. It is notable that the Baptists, in general, are foremost in
declaring the "inerrency" of the Bible (by which they mean the KN). Even the Jews who have
professed to have taken great pains in preserving the authenticity of the language of the Scriptures
in their copying of the ancient manuscripts have been found to have introduced private opinions by
changing the gender and number (singular, plural) of words as they apply to the Godhead in order to
hide the fact that the Creators of heaven and earth were represented in both the plural, and in the
masculine and feminine genders in the ancient Hebrew Holy Scriptures. This has been done to hide

99

the truth of the Family of God.

Yet despite the fact that men have done to God's written word what their counterparts in the
past have done to God's only begotten Son, there is still the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Holy

Writ to bring salvation to the humblest seeker of truth and righteousness.

SUMMARY
Herein we have seen many of the elements of the warfare against the Branch Davidian
Seventh Day Adventists, and its proceedings. The lessons learned from the situation are manifold.
The first involving why and how those who ended up with Koresh may be summed up in the
following verses:
"Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted
Isaiah 2:22.

of?"

"Trust ye not in a friend, put ye not confidence in a guide." Micah 7:5.

God was the only one who Koresh's followers should have been trusting for their fates. But as
they had long before put their trust first in themselves (they felt that their own natural powers of
perception were sufficient to understand truth), and secondly in Koresh - whose doctrines provided
one excuse after another for them remaining sinners, as he, and from forsaking the high calling of
the Gospel which they heard in the true Church. They cannot blame God for their fate, for they
made their choices without His counsel.
The second involving the same principle is that similar things can happen to anyone who
fails to acknowledge and accept God as the overseer of their minds and bodies. While Koresh and his
followers were trusting ill self and man rather than God, so were those who came against them. After
the end of the matter, many people expressed their disgust about the way the whole thing went
down. Many lost faith in their government leaders, while others hardened their hearts in regard to
the way human life was cheapened in the name of law enforcement so that they could justify in their
minds the errors in judgement which caused the losses of life.
But the real lesson to be learned from all of this is what will be the consequences to the
nation in which such deceptions, misrepresentations,
and misuses of power have taken place. The
question is whether or not God can be true to His principles of truth and justice by leaving those who
walk in their arrogance unrebuked or unpunished. Whether they be those who profess to be servants
of God, or those who don't profess anything, true repentance is called for. Seldom does the laity of a
church rise above the standard practiced by their leaders. The same is true in regards to societies. Yet
such is what is of paramount importance today.
Mere boasts of God being with us will not be enough to see us through the trials and
tribulations which are coming on the world. As pointed out at the beginning of this presentation,
"the LORD hath a controversy with his people." Micah 6.2. The Lord has stated the heart of the
controversy in the words, "0 my people, what have I done unto thee? and wherein have I wearied
thee? testify against me." (verse 3). So what is it that He has done unto His people, to weary them?
Over the past few centuries He has given His people reformers who have worked to correct
the errors in doctrines and practices which have nearly drowned the Church. He has taken them from
the places of entrenched controversies (Europe and the Middle East), and placed them in America
and has given them a noble form of government whereby they have had the opportunity to be free
to enter into the restitution of truth and righteousness. But they have slighted these blessings and
have continued in their stubbornness of maintaining their erroneous ways and divisions. Not only
have they failed to advance with the light and power given to prepare His people for Christ's second
coming, but are actually working contrary to His will by linking up with each other to maintain their
100

respective private opinions, theories, and practices.

But what is even worse is that they are linking up with those who have no regard for God and
His law. It is said that "politics make strange bedfellows." Yet tragedies, calamities, and wars make
even stranger ones. It is written: "The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in
the LORD shall be safe." (Proverbs 29:25). "Sanctify the LORD of hosts himself; and let him be
your fear, and let him be your dread." (Isaiah 8:13).
'
"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for
this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing,
whether it be good, or whether it be evi1." (Ecclesiastes 12:13, 14).
---0--For a basic overall delineation
of the events related herein as they involve Vernon
Howell/David
Koresh, please see <x=Affidavit Concerning The Unlawful Activities Of Vernon
Howell, (A.K.A. David Koresh), His Followers, And Others>>>
<Steve,
this portion is in a link as you suggested earlier, I am leaving in here for now
because I may want to use this for a hard copy version. When we get a little further along I will make
a copy of the whole thing and eliminate this portion for our web version, as it will be I a link>>>
To show that Vernon's (and Satan's) intentions for coming to the Branch was to stop
Lois from publishing her and Ben's messages we present his own words from a tape which he sent to
the field about a year after Lois died, entitled The Seven Thunders - Written or Not.
Not
e
non-italicized statements in brackets "[ ]" are mine.
"1983, 10 days prior to Atonement a very very special message came to us at Mount
Carmel Center. A message which God by His own word entitled the Serpent's Root - the Serpent's
Root. Because of the title and because that the Branch's had for years been slacking in their Bible
studies which Brother Roden and Sister Roden had consistently been telling them that they must
study that they may J...710W truth the message took everyone by surprise. George B. Roden has
presently as it appears received Mount Carmel Center and its assets. The decease of Sister Roden
should be a shock to many people. But as this tape is being sent to all the Branch's who had
professed to be in the present truth, I would like to review a few things that were stated by the seventh
angel, before all this trouble and all this shame came about.
"In 1983 after returning from Odessa, Texas after doing work out there for Mrs.
Roden, I came back to Mount Carmel upon her request. I had been having some trouble in regards
to... uh... certain things [masturbation - by his own testimony]. I had been on Mount Carmel for
quite a while without any type of social life [fornication]. Even George would probably admit that I
even talked with him on this subject a couple of times. So, upon my return to Mount Carmel, and
after certain complications, I had a discussion with Sister Roden. I had been uh. .. doing certain
things [masturbation]
in my own life which I never were able to, in my own strength, seem to
overcome. But one thing I had done when I first came to Mount Carmel, I never realized the
magnitude and enormity of the sin, and that was talking about a messenger derogatory and even
like jesting.
"This I had done [with Clive and others in the printing room, especially] and the Lord
had rebuked me on it. And so I came to Sister Roden and I came to apologize. And upon
apologizing, that day, this message came. It was that simple. [This is not true, for he first presented
his message more than one year before, and kept referring to the fact that all had rejected him the
first time, and were in the trouble with George, etc., because of previously rejecting him.]
"My mind saw panoramic views of Scripture and as I was verbally explaining these

101

things that I had seen to Sister Roden, she told me, she says, you have to present this to the class.
And then began this message, and here we are today. Sister Roden, as everyone will avouch, was
very strong in this message and not once did she ever write anything against the doctrine of this
message. And not once did she ever raise her voice against this message. Not once. [not true] She
insinuated things [regularly]. She insinuated.. But just like we had learned under the Serpent's Root
message in Ezekiel 14 that those who fail to progress with the present truth properly weighing every
point of evidence will fall.
"When Sister Roden's message came did Brother Roden stand up and say, oh this is
true, everybody accept it. No, he did not, he said you must study on your own. George had for quite
some time been stating that Sister Roden was a type of William Miller. Ok, I'll admit that, but only in
the light of Ezekiel 14. Which tells us that if a man comes to a prophet with an idol in his heart and
the stumbling block of his iniquity before his face God will, read it for yourself, deceive that prophet.
"Those who had placed all their faith in William Miller's experience not properly
weighing Biblical evidence for the foundation of their faith were just simple tares in Satan's heavy
half to eventually flood the Church out. That's the way the devil always does it. Every time a new
message comes that supersedes the past message, many do not ask is it truth, but they say by whom
does it come. And if it does not come through the channel that they wish they will excuse themselves
with their own investigation. That's why when the Passover was called in 1984, there was two classes;
those who entertained themselves up at the Church house, wearing weapons on their sides, and those
who humbly sat and learned day by day the lessons taught by the Spirit of God down at Perry's
house [not at Lois' house were regular Church meeting were held]. And if we can bring to the
attention of the people, we would like for you to remember that Sister Roden came to those studies,
didn't she? Yes. [For the same reasons that I did, to try and recover those who were deceived by
Vernon]. And she kept coming back. And when we had to go and we had to get a place down at the
black Church, who kept coming to the meetings? Sister Roden. [to prove him wrong] And now that
she is deceased, which God foretold she would be; if certain members did not accept the present
truth by investigating it. We'll admit, and I'm sure that those at Mount Carmel know, that she was
coming out to Palestine to all the meetings [to, again, point out his errors]. She told people that we
had the Lucifer message. [This was much more than an insinuation.] Finally she became more bold
in her own deception. [of rejecting his message] And the Lord let her rest.
" ... One day I was walking with Sister Roden up towards the barracks. I used to do a
lot of work around there and people will admit it, and I'm sure George will too in his honesty. I had
been helping George take down his trailer house, because he had made a recent deal with Sister
Roden in regards to a certain trade - he was trying to get means to go to Israel. What took place
was that as I was walking up there, she was making a statement about a certain thing, and I said,
'Well George says, ' and I explained what George has said. She says, 'Well you don't mind what
George says. ' I said, 'Well ... He is going to be the next messenger ... ' She says, "George ain't
gonna be anything. , Excuse me, she said, 'George isn't gonna be anything until he learns how to be
obedient and to take orders. '
" ... So then what took place, 1983, a message came. But it did not come to George.
All the time I had been working for Sister Roden I had been learning things ....
So what happened
was, what happens is that in 1983, the message came - The Serpent's Root, and Sister Roden
accepted it [this is not completely true]. She has never purported anybody s message, Branch's,
never, never. She didn't purport George in the beginning. Once she he was teaching error, she shut
him down. This message wasn't the same. She's the one that wrote the first letter called Blow Ye The
Trumpets In Zion.
"In Odessa I just simply quoted it out of my mouth as God was revealing it to me, and
she wrote it all down [But, after examining what was written, she would not sign it, and Vernon, or
one of his followers had to forge the signature.] I was money from her that published it. [This is not
accurate to the facts.] She wrote the letters. But I had my faith in her, because she was the one that
kept moving me forward. [This is a gross distortion.]

102

"But as I kept becoming more and more grounded on the message, she started
changing
[she was awakening to his deceptions]. She was discussing one day about printing
Shekinah magazine again [after he had burned down the publishing house]. And the Lord told me to
tell her not to publish it, that that phase of the work was to no longer be in existence anymore. The
magazine had to become more doctrinal from the Branch doctrine instead of from worldly scholars.
Well. When I gave her this in formation, she got upset. And I said, Sister Roden, this is what the Lord
has said. Well, she says, 'The Lord wants the work to be done too, and the Shekinah magazine is an
important magazine.' I said, 'But Sister Roden, you know, you started this message and you want
me to give this message, and the Lord has told me to tell you not to publish the magazine anymore. '
"We had bought'en several gallons of gasoline. And Sister Roden took all the cars
away from us [this was certainly not the action of someone who supposedly had given her right to
leadership to anyone].
"But we're not going to go into that. So I had the key to the gas tank. And I had been
doing a lot of work around there, so the Lord informed me that I was to keep [steal] the key. So as I
was getting gasoline one day, she said to give her the key [because she had lawful control of all
Branch property, since she was the president]. I says, 'well, Sister Roden, I can't do that.' [He could
accept her leadership]. She turned and got real mad. I couldn't understand it. [1 could because I was
an eye witness to this event, and that which proceeded it.]
"People know, people that were there they understand what was going on. Changes
were taking place, that a new message was coming. A wonderful message, a wonderful revelation.
So what took place was that she in rebellion turned away and she published the magazine. [This is
absolute proof, from Vernon's own words, that Lois did not pass the leadership to him, but openly
opposed his teachings.]
" . . . They believe in dead prophets. They believe in idols, graven images, and molten
images. . . . Why does George and everyone treat us so bad for? If I'm deceived, why don't people
write letters to me and show me where I am in error? Why don't you do that Branch's? Why don't
you show enough Christian love to show me where I am wrong as far as the doctrine.
Don't tell me because I went to bed with this person, or because I used to drink beer, or I
used to smoke cigarettes. That stuff ain't gonna hold worth anything in the judgment. Everybody is
saying I've got all these wives and stuff. Tell me who my wives are. Come here and point them out.
People always like to talk.
" ... 'LORD. When thy hand is lifted up, they shall see, and be ashamed for their envy
at the people. ' Those who are envious at us, their own fire that they caused, they wanted to cook us,
right? They are going to be consumed. But the Lord is going to ordain peace for us, for we give all
the Lord the credit for all the work that the Lord has done for us. We admit that we have allowed
other people to rule us and to boss us around, that were not inspired, verse 13, but they are going to
be dead. Well George and Sister Roden and Jane [George's sister] all got mad when I was at Mount
Carmel when I told them if you don't listen to this message you will die.
" ... How come they are dead in verse 14 of chapter 26? You know why they are
dead? Because they are going to kill the Lord's messenger [him, Vernon]. You wait and see. They
are going to kill ....
Yea, God is going to smite a person. [He is speaking of himself.] But he is
going to smite those who smote him. . . . And like George and Jane told me one day at the
courthouse, Jane is standing there and she says we are gonna crucify you. Well, that which you do,
do quickly. "
Excerpts from, The Seven Thunders -

Written or Not?, by Vernon Howell, late 1987 -

early 1988
The last time that I saw Vernon, in 1987, he told me that Lois had told him that he was "going to
burn in hell." He just laughed as he said it.

103