The Pentecostal Roots of Dominionism Explained | Pentecostal Secrets | 717  🔗 **Source:** [The Pentecostal Roots of Dominionism Explained | Pentecostal Secrets | 717](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [pentecostal-history, dominionism, latter-rain, british-israelism, new-apostolic-reformation, pentecostal-assemblies-of-canada] > author: Leaving the Message > source: Leaving the Message (YouTube channel; William Branham Historical Research podcast, episode 717) > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8 > date created: 2026-10-06 > > > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written > > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author. > > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author. > > # 🏷️ Title: The Pentecostal Roots of Dominionism Explained | Pentecostal Secrets | 717 > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧭 Table of contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning styles assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) - [🔄 Refactor Appendix](#-refactor-appendix) ## 📝 Summary - **What happened.** Host John Collins and guest "Andrew Martin" (the caption's spelling; the host calls him Andrew) spend 54 minutes tracing where Pentecostal dominionism comes from. Collins argues that the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is a rebrand of Latter Rain theology, that Joel's Army and Manifested Sons of God ideas "came directly" from it, and that the line "goes all the way back to 1947" [00:09:39]–[00:10:23]. He adds a second line: British Israelism entered Pentecostalism "in the militant way" through Totten's books, Frank Sandford's group and Charles Parham [00:32:57]–[00:33:41]. The guest, a lifelong member of the Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada (PAOC), supplies the first-hand material: a Latter Rain-identified home church, tongues, being "slain in the Spirit," a Toronto Blessing visit, and the sermon habits he sees now. Collins adds his own 37-year exit story [00:24:56]. - **Why it matters.** It's one of the few episodes in this series where an insider who still attends a PAOC congregation describes how this vocabulary sounded from the pew. His account differs from Collins's genealogy at one point that decides the argument: in his circles "Joel's Army" and dominion meant a spiritual army and revival, never a physical one [00:16:59]. - **Key stakeholders.** Named on the movement side: Myrtle Beal, George H. "gotten," Reg Lazel, William Branham, F.F. Bosworth, John Wimber, Mike Bickle, John G. Lake, Jim Jones, Totten, Frank Sandford, Charles Parham, John Dowie. Institutions: the PAOC, the US Assemblies of God, IHOP KC, the Toronto Blessing, the Hebden Mission, Azusa Street. Several names are caption garbles; the name table in Main content lists my likely corrections, all marked as inference. - **Risks and tradeoffs.** Two things limit the episode as evidence. First, it cites no document: no sermon, book edition, newspaper ad, date or page backs any link in either genealogy except the single year 1947, which has no source attached. Second, the best-supported material is testimony about what these groups taught, not proof of where they got it. A reader gets reliable data on presence (the "promises to Israel are yours" reading shows up in both speakers' upbringings) and little data on origin. - **Bottom line.** The episode shows that a militant-leaning, "Old Testament promises apply to us" reading exists in Pentecostal and Latter Rain circles on both sides of the PAOC's denunciation of Latter Rain. It asserts, but doesn't demonstrate, that Latter Rain and British Israelism caused the NAR's dominionism. The hosts also disagree with each other mildly on whether the army was ever physical. ## 📖 Main content ### Reading conventions Each claim carries a register label. *(first-hand)* means the speaker reports something he lived or did. *(secondhand)* means he reports what another person said, wrote or did. *(interpretation)* means the speaker draws a conclusion, offers a mechanism or characterizes motive. Where one sentence mixes registers, I split it. The captions have no speaker labels, so I attribute turns by content; one turn change falls inside a paragraph at [00:15:29] and is my inference. **Names as captioned, with my likely corrections (all inference, queued for verification):** | Caption spelling | Likely | Where | Basis for my guess | |---|---|---|---| | William Brandom / Brandham / "Brandon" | William Branham | passim | host runs a Branham research archive; the site is spelled three ways [00:00:07], [00:27:07], [00:53:41] | | Myrtle Beal | Myrtle Beall | [00:03:49] | spelling | | George H. gotten / George H. Cotton | George Hawtin | [00:03:49], [00:05:17] | Saskatchewan and Latter Rain context | | Reg Lazel / Regly | Reg Layzell | [00:03:49], [00:05:17] | British Columbia meetings | | Isuza Street | Azusa Street | [00:04:33] | spelling | | Hebden / Hebdon mission | Hebden Mission, Toronto | [00:04:33] | the caption spells it two ways | | Katherryn Khman | Kathryn Kuhlman | [00:17:44] | spelling | | Mike Bickl | Mike Bickle | [00:15:29] | spelling | | Cal Totten | Totten, first name unclear | [00:32:57] | "Cal" doesn't parse as a first name | | Frank Samford / Sanford | Frank Sandford | [00:33:41] | spelling | | Charles Fox Parm | Charles Fox Parham | [00:33:41] | spelling | | John Dowi | John Alexander Dowie | [00:33:41] | spelling | | Uczeius | Josephus | [00:02:20] | the host mentions "the Jews and the antiquities" | | latter reign / ladder reign / Later movement / Latterine | Latter Rain | passim | context | | Steven McGomery | possibly Stephen Montgomery | [00:27:51] | author list in an ad read | | Brantley | unidentified podcast figure | [00:15:29] | no further information in the transcript | | "the N" | NAR | [00:53:41] | the book title cuts off | | Jim Jones | identity unstated | [00:05:17], [00:23:30] | I assume the Peoples Temple leader; the transcript doesn't say | ### Segment 1 — [00:00:07]–[00:03:04] Setup and standpoint Collins introduces himself as author and founder of the William Branham Historical Research archive and the guest as "Pentecostal extraordinaire." He says he disagrees with his Pentecostal friends theologically but has good conversations with them [00:00:49]. The guest describes himself as a lifelong PAOC member, still attending, asked to preach and leading Sunday worship music, speaking "from my experience" *(first-hand)* [00:01:36]. Collins explains why he invites insiders: he sees the topic as scattered puzzle pieces and wants them from people who hold them [00:01:36]. He supports that with an aside about an ancient historian's account of the Jews, which he says he's paraphrasing "greatly" *(secondhand, hedged)* [00:02:20]. ### Segment 2 — [00:03:04]–[00:08:55] The guest's corrections, the Latter Rain split, and the PAOC The guest corrects his previous appearance *(first-hand research)*. He had said Myrtle Beal went north to Saskatchewan, where George H. "gotten" had started meetings. He now says she headed to British Columbia, where Reg Lazel hosted meetings and invited "gotten" to speak. He couldn't confirm that the two were there at the same time, so the connection may be "not as close as I thought" [00:03:49]. He also found that she had started work at her Bethesda mission before she went [00:04:33]. He then asks whether this resembles Azusa Street and the Hebden Mission in Toronto, which had similar experiences, exchanged people, and in Toronto came to be "synonymous with" Azusa Street *(interpretation, posed as a question)* [00:04:33]. He raises a second question *(secondhand, from a prior episode)*: Collins said Beal gave prophecies to Jim Jones, and the same woman prophesied over the guest's founding pastors and family. "Where do you go with that information?" [00:05:17]. Collins answers with a general claim about memory *(interpretation)*: people who were aligned and then split over doctrine tend to forget the shared stretch. For Collins that explains why Latter Rain supporters and critics both skip the years they cooperated [00:06:01]. He calls the split "the biggest division in Pentecostal history" and says the shared years are where "the doctrines cross-pollinated" [00:06:44]. The guest adds that the PAOC formally denounced Latter Rain in line with the US Assemblies of God, but that the PAOC works as a fellowship, so local pastors keep wide autonomy *(secondhand institutional account plus first-hand membership)* [00:07:27]. His own home congregation publicly claimed to be a Latter Rain movement and joined the PAOC later *(first-hand)* [00:08:09]. ### Segment 3 — [00:08:55]–[00:19:52] Collins's thesis, loaded language, and the psychology claim Collins states the core thesis *(interpretation)*: the theologies introduced into the movement "tie directly" to current NAR structures, NAR is a rebrand of Latter Rain, and IHOP KC's Joel's Army and Manifested Sons of God "came directly from latter reign" [00:09:39]. Before the split, he says, some people "were starting to get so supercharged" that they expected to conquer the world in Jesus' name and then see him return, though "not everybody adopted that" [00:09:39]. Following that "to its logical conclusion" gives dominionism, and the lineage "goes all the way back to 1947" [00:10:23]. He gives no source for the date. The guest agrees the vocabulary is familiar but says the version he heard "isn't quite" the one he hears described on the podcast *(first-hand)* [00:10:23]. He describes a sermon pattern he sees now *(first-hand observation, interpretation of motive)*: scripture up front, then a slogan that doesn't follow from the text ("kingdom principles," "provision for the vision," "touch not God's anointed," "expectancy is the breeding ground for miracles"), followed by a request for "amen" or a rebuke if the response is flat [00:11:08]–[00:12:34]. Collins offers a Batman analogy: harmless ingredients combine into something corrosive *(interpretation)* [00:13:20]. He applies it to John Wimber's kingdom theology. He says Wimber doesn't use "kingdom" the way NAR people do, yet he reads the parts "from a lower level" and "sees nothing but the same thing," which drew "hate mail" *(first-hand report of his own experience, interpretation of Wimber)* [00:14:03]. His practical rule: if a doctrine can't be fully proved from the Bible, drop the addition [00:14:47]. Mike Bickle comes up twice. The guest says Bickle said "there will be actual bloodshed" and that "they were talking like he was going to enjoy" it *(secondhand, no source given)* [00:15:29]. The guest and Collins treat "chew the meat and spit out the bones" and a "Hamburger Helper" image (attributed to Bickle or IHOP KC people, no source) as the self-defense of the added doctrine *(secondhand, interpretation)* [00:16:15]. The guest returns to what he heard: a "spiritual dominion and a spiritual army," preparing for mass revival, never a literal army [00:16:59]. He worries that the same ideas "can easily get to that physical army" [00:17:44], and describes a man who has promoted a Canada-wide revival for 50 years because of a vision at a Kathryn Kuhlman meeting *(secondhand)* [00:17:44]. Collins gives a mechanism *(interpretation, hedged, labeled "my opinion")*: talk about non-physical things leads people to "disassociate" from reality, and some of them turn militant and can't "reel themselves back in," which explains the move to a physical army [00:18:27]–[00:19:10]. He cites militant language in Branham's sermons and the children's hymn "Onward Christian Soldiers" as early exposure *(first-hand)* [00:19:10]. He concludes the problem is "psychological" but at root "theological" [00:19:52]. ### Segment 4 — [00:19:52]–[00:27:07] Kingdom texts, "full gospel," and Collins's exit account The guest says the hymn made dominionism easy to dismiss because it was framed as concern for non-believers *(first-hand)* [00:19:52]. He names three texts that get stretched: the Lord's Prayer ("your kingdom come"), the Great Commission read as "Canada needs to be a Christian nation," and the "seven mountains" idea, which he mentions without defining [00:20:37]–[00:22:04] *(interpretation)*. He defines the "full gospel" as the claim that the gospel is incomplete without Spirit power, miracles and healing [00:22:47]. Collins ties "full gospel" to Latter Rain *(secondhand claim)*: churches advertised "full gospel" in newspaper ads, F.F. Bosworth and others merged healing with the atonement, and Branham said "How can I teach them algebra when they don't even know their ABCs?" [00:23:30]–[00:24:13]. He reads that as a claim to something "greater than the gospel," and "it isn't the gospel" *(interpretation)* [00:24:13]. The same paragraph says Jim Jones left the Methodist church "during the height" of Latter Rain. The clause that links the two events is garbled, so I can't tell whether Collins claims a cause or only a date (see Logical validity). Collins then gives his own first-hand account *(first-hand)*: "37 years into this cult," then a church that taught the whole Bible, including the old and new covenants and the Mosaic law [00:24:56]. Sermons he grew up with started from a military passage in the Old Testament and moved to "the common politics of today," which he describes as moving listeners from the new covenant to the old [00:25:40]–[00:26:24]. Former peers tell him "It wasn't like that," and he thinks they never linked the military verse to the modern application [00:27:07]. An ad read follows [00:27:07]–[00:28:33]. I treat it as commercial context and don't summarize it. ### Segment 5 — [00:28:33]–[00:36:43] "Israel for today" and the British Israelism chain The guest describes his own formation *(first-hand)*: he was taught to read Old Covenant conquest examples "under the umbrella" of the new covenant, using Galatians 4 (he thinks verses 6 and 7) to say believers are adopted heirs and so "Israel for today" [00:28:33]–[00:29:19]. That lets a believer claim any promise made to Israel "no matter where they are in the Bible" [00:29:19]. He critiques the move with Jeremiah 29:11, which he says was addressed to Israel in exile, and Psalm 72's "dominion from sea to sea," which he says fed a prophetic word that Canada will have revival and be a Christian nation [00:30:03]–[00:31:31]. His own reading: "It's about God having dominion" [00:31:31]. Taken to its end, he says, the approach gets "almost" to British Israelism [00:32:15]. Collins accepts the hand-off and gives his genealogy *(secondhand, from his research; no citation)*: 1. British Israelism holds that the British are descended from the lost 10 tribes; in the US and Canada, he says, people placed themselves in Ephraim ("if I remember correctly") [00:32:57]. 2. A man called Cal Totten, "a military instructor," wrote a popular war-game book and was a strong adherent [00:32:57]. 3. Totten's books and language "were used as instruction materials" in Frank Sandford's group in Maine [00:33:41]. 4. Charles Fox Parham "went to" Sandford's group and John Dowie's ("as you know"), so "he's being trained with the British Israel concept" in a militant form [00:33:41]. 5. So British Israelism entered Pentecostalism "in the militant way" [00:33:41]. 6. Later, many Pentecostals dropped British Israelism but kept the "building blocks": the idea that a blessing for Israel is a blessing for us [00:33:41]–[00:34:25]. Collins says he grew up in circles that rejected British Israelism and still taught the Bible "as though every passage was written both to Israel and to us" *(first-hand)* [00:34:25]. The guest describes the same reading from his own upbringing [00:28:33] but never says whether his circles held or rejected British Israelism *(first-hand)*. Collins concludes that this foundation made later militant readings "compatible" with people outside the NAR, which is why militant language shows up in writers "you would never even consider connected to NAR" *(interpretation)* [00:35:11]. The guest adds that the "heroes of the faith ... from the 17th century onward" share a similar foundation, with no names given *(interpretation)* [00:35:11]–[00:35:56]. ### Segment 6 — [00:36:43]–[00:54:33] Power, anointing, motive, and "decree and declare" The guest says the Holy Spirit language sounds biblical in theory, but in practice he sees a pursuit of "power and control, ... influence or affluence" *(first-hand observation, interpretation of motive)* [00:36:43]. He says "the anointing" gets talked about like "the force from Star Wars" and used as proof of status [00:38:09]. He mentions that his pastor has family connections to John G. Lake in Spokane *(first-hand)* [00:37:26]. He ties the pursuit to dominionism and names "a Mike Bickl or somebody" as an example of the risk *(interpretation)* [00:39:38]. Collins uses a telephone-game analogy: add words to "these signs shall follow them that believe" and the verse says you must seek signs yourself or go to an anointed person [00:40:21]–[00:41:04]. He sets it against "an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign" [00:41:04]. He claims the early church saw gifts as a community's, whereas today it's "a community of wizards" with conventions and apostles [00:41:48] *(interpretation, no source for the early-church claim)*. He gives a first-hand vocabulary example: in his group "overcomer" meant a level above other Christians ("We've got the algebra. They've got the ABCs"), and he ties that to "end time mature sons ... in Joel's army" [00:41:48]. The guest offers self-checks. If someone criticizes a leader and your first move is to defend him, ask whether your faith sits in the person or in Jesus [00:42:31]–[00:44:04]. Before you speak about a leader, ask whether you want to "discredit or tear somebody down" or you're concerned for the church [00:44:49]. He cites the people who say "I prophesied in your name" and hear "I don't know you" [00:46:19]. Collins reads that passage's "Have I not done" as self-focus and says the movements make believers "the mechanism that's doing the victory," while he reads victory as already finished [00:47:04]. He describes rebuilding his doctrine from "ground zero," adding a doctrine only if he can find it "word for word, verbatim," and testing each with "can I love my neighbor if I'm believing this?" *(first-hand)* [00:47:47]–[00:48:31]. The guest says that "decree and declare" teaching puts faith in oneself. He relays a story from a speaker who denied having shingles and still treated it for 3 days, and who later needed heart surgery *(secondhand, speaker unnamed)* [00:49:16]–[00:50:45]. He closes by urging listeners to read the Bible to know God, not to prove a person right or wrong [00:52:15]. Collins jokes about declaring against shingles by getting the vaccine, adds that an antiviral within 72 hours clears shingles quickly *(secondhand, no source)*, and says his old group had "faith in faith" [00:52:58]–[00:53:41]. A book plug and outro follow. ### Genealogy as the hosts draw it | # | Link as claimed | Evidence given in the transcript | Register | Verdict | |---|---|---|---|---| | G1 | Latter Rain before the split proposed conquering the world, then Christ returns | none; "not everybody adopted that" [00:09:39] | interpretation | asserted | | G2 | Latter Rain → Joel's Army / Manifested Sons of God → IHOP KC ("came directly") | shared vocabulary only [00:09:39] | interpretation | asserted | | G3 | NAR = Latter Rain "rebranded" | host's opinion, flagged as such [00:09:39] | interpretation | asserted | | G4 | That theology, followed "to its logical conclusion," = dominionism, dated to 1947 | the year, no source [00:10:23] | interpretation | asserted | | G5 | Totten's books were instruction materials at Sandford's group | none [00:33:41] | secondhand | asserted | | G6 | Parham attended Sandford's and Dowie's, so was trained in British Israelism | "as you know" [00:33:41]; guest doesn't confirm on air | secondhand | partly asserted (attendance stated; absorption inferred) | | G7 | British Israelism → "blessing for Israel is for us" hermeneutic persists after British Israelism is dropped | two first-hand accounts of the hermeneutic [00:28:33], [00:34:25]; only Collins says his circles rejected British Israelism | first-hand (presence) plus interpretation (origin) | presence supported, origin asserted | | G8 | That hermeneutic → militant reading of conquest texts → NAR compatibility | Collins's sermons-from-childhood account [00:25:40], writers "you would never ... connect to NAR" [00:35:11] | first-hand plus interpretation | presence partly supported, causation asserted | | G9 | Militant language (Branham sermons, "Onward Christian Soldiers") → war concept → dissociation → physical army | childhood singing and Branham's style *(first-hand)*; mechanism hedged as "my opinion" [00:19:10] | first-hand plus interpretation | exposure supported, mechanism asserted | | G10 | "Full gospel" healing-in-atonement (Bosworth, Branham) → "something greater than the gospel" → "overcomer" elite tier → Joel's Army "mature sons" | Collins's own vocabulary memory [00:41:48], newspaper ads claim [00:23:30] | first-hand plus secondhand | vocabulary supported in one group; link to Joel's Army asserted | | G11 | Beal prophesied over Jim Jones and over the guest's founding pastors | recalled from a prior episode [00:05:17]; Collins doesn't confirm here | secondhand | unconfirmed in this episode; significance unstated | | G12 | Azusa/Hebden pattern → Beal/Hawtin/Layzell pattern | partial research, guest's own hedge [00:03:49] | first-hand research, question | hedged question | ### Numbers and dates, as spoken - 1947 — date for the line back to dominionism [00:10:23]. - 37 years — Collins's time in the group he left [00:24:56], [00:25:40]. - 50 years — the man promoting a Canada-wide revival [00:17:44]. - "In my 40s" — the guest's age range [00:08:55]. He was "a young teenager or pre-teen" at the Toronto Blessing; no year given [00:08:09]. - "Lost 10 tribes" — British Israelism's claim [00:32:57]. - "17th century onward" — the span of "heroes of the faith" [00:35:11]. - 3 days — duration of shingles treatment in the story; 72 hours — Collins's antiviral window [00:49:59], [00:52:58]. - "Two or three verses" — how much Old Testament text a militant sermon opening used [00:26:24]. - Scripture references as spoken: Galatians 4 (guest: "I think it's 6 and 7"), Jeremiah 29:11, Psalm 72, Matthew 7 or 25 (guest unsure which), the Lord's Prayer, the Great Commission, Paul to the Corinthians (love passage) [00:28:33]–[00:52:15]. - "A third time" — the guest says they'll "have to come back" a third time, which implies this is his second appearance [00:23:30]. - Counts from the caption file: 8,965 words, 4 [laughter] tags, 6 "Heat" captions at the music cues. ### How this episode relates to the spiritual-warfare episode (XUPDzRSVgUE) I read only that note's Summary. It reports a provenance argument about spiritual warfare, a dated chronology that puts secular film and fiction beside deliverance developments, and an explicit refusal to claim direct causation for "cross-pollination." This episode adds three things. It moves the source of the ideas from secular culture to internal Pentecostal ancestors (Latter Rain, British Israelism). It adds first-hand insider testimony from a PAOC member and Collins's own exit account. And it carries only one date, 1947, against that note's multi-year chronology. It also differs in force: "cross-pollinated" [00:06:44] is a hedged mechanism, but "came directly from latter reign" [00:09:39] is a causal claim, and it's stronger than the disclaimer the earlier Summary describes. ### What the transcript leaves open No sermon, book edition, page, newspaper ad or date supports G1 through G12. The speakers name people and groups and state relationships. A viewer who wants to test any link has to find the primary sources independently. The ad read at [00:27:07] points to the host's archive and books page, but I treat that as commercial context and can't say what the archive contains. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=7) Intro and guest - Collins names himself, the William Branham Historical Research archive and the guest. - The guest has appeared once before; the prior episode covered his experiences with the "New Order of the Latter Rain." > [!quote] [00:00:07] > I have my very special guest, Andrew Martin, Pentecostal extraordinaire. #### ⏱️ [00:00:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=49) Why Collins invites insiders - Collins says his Pentecostal friends disagree with him theologically but share good conversations. - Guest: not "a complete Pentecostal guru," lifelong PAOC member. > [!quote] [00:01:36] > I just have grown up in the PAOC in Canada uh my whole life. Still a part of it. #### ⏱️ [00:02:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=140) Aside on going to the source - Collins cites a book "I think ... Uczeius" about the Jews and "antiquities," paraphrased "greatly," and says records were lost during the Babylonian invasion (likely Josephus; my inference). - Point: the people who hold the history are the best source for it. Register: secondhand, hedged. #### ⏱️ [00:03:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=184) Topic and the guest's corrections - Collins expects a talk on dominionism "from a non-new apostolic reformation perspective." - The guest revises his earlier account: Beal's destination was British Columbia, Lazel's meetings, Hawtin as an invited speaker; overlap unconfirmed (*first-hand research*). #### ⏱️ [00:04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=273) The Azusa and Hebden analogy - Beal had "plans already in progress" at her Bethesda mission before travelling. - Guest asks whether Beal, Hawtin and Lazel resemble Azusa Street and the Toronto Hebden mission: parallel experiences, people travelling between, eventual merging of identity (*interpretation, posed as a question*). #### ⏱️ [00:05:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=317) The Jim Jones question - Guest recalls Collins saying Beal prophesied over Jim Jones, and notes she also prophesied over his founding pastors and relatives (*secondhand*). - The guest asks how to make sense of that, whether it came from God or deserves any weight. #### ⏱️ [00:06:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=361) The "forgotten hand-in-hand" explanation - Collins's reply doesn't address the Jones prophecy directly. He argues that people who split over doctrine forget the earlier agreement. - Application: Latter Rain advocates and critics both avoid discussing the years they worked together (*interpretation*). > [!quote] [00:06:44] > it shows all the connections and how the doctrines cross-pollinated #### ⏱️ [00:07:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=447) The PAOC's structure - The PAOC denounced Latter Rain after the US Assemblies of God did. - A "fellowship, not ... a strict denomination" lets local congregations host who they like if they publicly affirm core beliefs. > [!quote] [00:07:27] > the way the PAOC is formed as a fellowship, not as a strict denomination allows a lot more autonomy in local congregations and local pastors #### ⏱️ [00:08:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=489) The guest's lived experience - His home congregation openly called itself a Latter Rain movement before it joined the PAOC (*first-hand*). - Experiences: speaking in tongues, being slain in the Spirit, visiting the Toronto Blessing as a young teen or preteen. - Now in his 40s, he wants to re-examine what he was taught against the Bible. > [!quote] [00:08:09] > I was brought up in it. I uh have experienced all the Pentecostal things that you can probably think of. #### ⏱️ [00:08:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=535) Collins's thesis: NAR as rebranded Latter Rain - The thesis opens the dominionism discussion. Collins ties Latter Rain theology to IHOP KC's Joel's Army and Manifested Sons of God. - "Not everybody adopted that," so the claim is about a subset (*interpretation*). > [!quote] [00:09:39] > So if you go to IHOP KC, you're looking at Joel's army, manifested sons of God. Well, all of that came directly from latter reign. #### ⏱️ [00:10:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=623) 1947 and the "logical conclusion" - Following the conquer-then-return idea to its logical end gives dominionism; it "goes all the way back to 1947." - The guest: same words, different presentation (*first-hand*). > [!quote] [00:10:23] > And if you follow that out to its logical conclusion, you end up with dominionism. #### ⏱️ [00:11:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=668) Loaded language and proof texts - The guest describes a pulpit pattern: scripture first, then a non-scriptural takeaway, then a request for affirmation. - Examples as spoken: "kingdom principles," "provision for the vision," "touch not God's anointed." > [!quote] [00:11:51] > expectancy is the breeding ground for miracles or faith will never explore what we don't see as possible #### ⏱️ [00:13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=800) Batman analogy and the Wimber page - Collins's analogy: each ingredient is benign, the combination isn't. He says Wimber doesn't mean "kingdom" as NAR figures do, but reads the components "from a lower level." - He reports hate mail after publishing the Wimber page. > [!quote] [00:14:03] > I got all kinds of hate mail. #### ⏱️ [00:15:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=929) Bickle, "chew the meat," "Hamburger Helper" - The guest attributes talk of actual bloodshed to Bickle (*secondhand, unsourced*). - Both discuss the "chew the meat, spit out the bones" habit and the "Hamburger Helper" image as a defense of added doctrine. > [!quote] [00:15:29] > Mike Bickl was saying things like there will be actual bloodshed #### ⏱️ [00:16:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1019) Spiritual army, not physical - The guest heard "spiritual dominion and a spiritual army," tied to revival and end times. - A 50-year Canada-wide revival promoter drew his vision from a Kuhlman meeting (*secondhand*). > [!quote] [00:16:59] > I never heard it presented to me in in the circles that I was in as a physical dominion #### ⏱️ [00:18:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1107) Collins's dissociation mechanism - Non-physical talk plus belief without textual support makes some people "disassociate," and some of those turn militant. - Collins labels it his opinion. > [!quote] [00:19:10] > I think that is why it developed into the actual physical army concept. I think people were disassociating. #### ⏱️ [00:19:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1192) Psychological, then theological - Collins locates the root in theology and uses "Hamburger Helper" as a contrast with "the real" teaching. > [!quote] [00:19:52] > And I've had the real and I've had the hamburger helper. And I got to say, I like the real stuff a lot better. #### ⏱️ [00:20:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1237) Texts the guest says get stretched - The Lord's Prayer; the Great Commission becoming "Canada needs to be a Christian nation"; the seven mountains named in passing. - The "full gospel" defined as the gospel plus Spirit power and signs. > [!quote] [00:21:20] > Canada needs to be a Christian nation #### ⏱️ [00:23:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1410) Full gospel, Bosworth and "algebra" - Collins: Latter Rain churches ran "full gospel" ads; Bosworth and others joined healing to the atonement, so "you're saved if you can be healed." - Branham quote and Collins's gloss: "something greater than the gospel." > [!quote] [00:24:13] > How can I teach them algebra when they don't even know their ABCs? #### ⏱️ [00:24:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1496) Collins's exit account - 37 years in, he left for a church that taught the whole Bible, including covenants and the Mosaic law (*first-hand*). > [!quote] [00:24:56] > I was 37 years into this cult. #### ⏱️ [00:25:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1540) Militant verses and modern politics - Old Testament conquest provisions use "possess" and "occupy"; sermons read two or three such verses and moved to current politics (*first-hand*). > [!quote] [00:26:24] > taking people out of the new covenant into the old covenant, but specifically choosing the ones that are going to supercharge you against whatever is the agenda of the preacher. #### ⏱️ [00:27:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1627) Peers' denial; ad read - Former peers say "It wasn't like that"; Collins says they never connected the verse to the application. - An ad read for the archive's website and books page follows [00:27:51]; commercial context, not summarized. #### ⏱️ [00:28:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1713) "Israel for today" - The guest was taught to read conquest examples through believers' adoption as heirs (Galatians 4). > [!quote] [00:29:19] > but we are now in a sense Israel for today. #### ⏱️ [00:30:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1803) Jeremiah 29:11 and Psalm 72 - Jeremiah 29:11 was written to Israel in exile; the guest has a plaque of it. - Psalm 72 supposedly shaped a Canada prophecy because of its coasts, the St. Lawrence Seaway and Hudson's Bay. > [!quote] [00:31:31] > it's not about us having dominion. It's about God having dominion. #### ⏱️ [00:32:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1935) Hand-off to British Israelism - The guest says the "claim every promise" approach leads "almost" to British Israelism. #### ⏱️ [00:32:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=1977) Collins's British Israelism chain - Definition: the British as descendants of the lost 10 tribes; the US and Canada placed in Ephraim ("if I remember correctly"). - Totten: military instructor, popular war-game book. > [!quote] [00:32:57] > there was a growing movement that believed that they were the descendants of the lost 10 tribes of Israel. #### ⏱️ [00:33:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2021) Totten, Sandford, Parham, Dowie - Totten's books taught at Sandford's group; Parham went to Sandford's and Dowie's. - Many Pentecostals later dropped the doctrine but kept its "building blocks." > [!quote] [00:33:41] > His books and his language were used as instruction materials in Frank Sanford's cult in Maine. #### ⏱️ [00:34:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2065) The inherited reading habit - Collins says his circles rejected British Israelism and still read promises to Israel as promises to them; the guest describes the same reading but doesn't say how his circles viewed British Israelism. > [!quote] [00:34:25] > So we were taught to read the Bible as though every passage was written both to Israel and to us, especially from the Old Testament. #### ⏱️ [00:35:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2111) Compatibility, not membership - Militant language shows up in writers unconnected to NAR because the same building blocks were available. - The guest extends the pattern to "heroes of the faith" from the 17th century, with no names. > [!quote] [00:35:11] > you can read that militant language all throughout some of the writings of people that you would never even consider connected to NAR #### ⏱️ [00:36:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2203) Power and control - In practice, the guest says, the Holy Spirit language becomes a search for influence. > [!quote] [00:36:43] > it's really not about wanting the presence of God and the Holy Spirit in your life. It's about seeking power and control #### ⏱️ [00:38:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2289) The anointing as "the force" - The guest's pastor has family connections to John G. Lake in Spokane (*first-hand*). - Anointing becomes something you can manipulate and use to show status. > [!quote] [00:38:09] > It almost becomes like the force from Star Wars. #### ⏱️ [00:39:38](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2378) Leaders who aren't safe - Followers don't see that a leader like "a Mike Bickl or somebody" may be manipulating the text (*interpretation*). #### ⏱️ [00:40:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2421) Added words change the verse - Collins's telephone-game analogy and the "signs shall follow" example. Verse reference not given in the transcript. > [!quote] [00:41:04] > Those two are actually incompatible, but you have to add to it. #### ⏱️ [00:41:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2508) Wizards and overcomers - Collins says the early church saw gifts as communal; today's version needs conventions and apostles (*interpretation, no source*). - "Overcomer" in his own group meant a tier above other believers (*first-hand*). > [!quote] [00:41:48] > into a community of wizards in the modern era. #### ⏱️ [00:42:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2551) "Don't quench the Spirit" and the defend-the-leader reflex - The guest says he hears that questioning experiences or exposing sins "hurts the movement." > [!quote] [00:42:31] > you can't question somebody's personal experiences or if you expose somebody's personal sins, you're going to hurt the movement. #### ⏱️ [00:43:17](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2597) A self-test about where faith sits > [!quote] [00:43:17] > Is my faith rooted in the the public persona of a person or leader or is my faith rooted in Jesus? #### ⏱️ [00:44:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2689) Motive check - The guest asks speakers to check whether they're "tearing someone down" or protecting the church, and cites 1 Corinthians-style love as the standard (the passage isn't named beyond "Paul said to the Corinthians"). > [!quote] [00:44:49] > Am I talking about it or sharing about it because I want to discredit or tear somebody down? #### ⏱️ [00:46:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2779) "Lord, have I not prophesied" - The guest cites the "I never knew you" passage and reads some "full gospel" preachers as believing they are the faithful ones. #### ⏱️ [00:47:04](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2824) "Have I not done" - Collins reads the speakers in that passage as focused on their own acts, and links "victory" theology to believers acting as "the mechanism." > [!quote] [00:47:04] > It's always have I not done. #### ⏱️ [00:47:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2867) Collins's clean slate - He sits down with a minister and starts over; he adds a doctrine only if it appears "word for word, verbatim." > [!quote] [00:47:47] > I'm starting over from ground zero. #### ⏱️ [00:48:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2911) The love test > [!quote] [00:48:31] > can I love my neighbor if I'm believing this? Yes or no? #### ⏱️ [00:49:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2956) Decree and declare - The guest says the teaching puts faith in one's own speech. The speaker he describes is unnamed. > [!quote] [00:49:16] > I've heard so many people talk about like you need to uh decree and declare #### ⏱️ [00:49:59](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=2999) The shingles story - The speaker denied having shingles to the doctor, still treated it for 3 days, then later had heart surgery (*secondhand*). The guest hedges whether the timeline was a miracle. > [!quote] [00:50:45] > did you not have enough faith to be able to decree and declare that you didn't need the heart surgery #### ⏱️ [00:51:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=3090) Living in response - The guest refers to a passage about caring for the blind, the poor and prisoners, and says it's in "Matthew 7 or Matthew 25." #### ⏱️ [00:52:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=3135) The guest's closing appeal - Read to know God, not to prove a person right or wrong. #### ⏱️ [00:52:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=3178) Collins's close - Vaccine joke; an antiviral within 72 hours; "faith in faith." > [!quote] [00:53:41] > We actually had faith in faith, if that makes any sense #### ⏱️ [00:54:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8&t=3273) Outro - Music only. The earlier plug names a book, *Weaponized Religion: From Christian Identity to the N...* (title cut off) [00:53:41]. Commercial context. ## 📚 References - [The Pentecostal Roots of Dominionism Explained | Pentecostal Secrets | 717](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrIBRNK_zz8), channel Leaving the Message, uploaded 2026-10-01, runtime 55:25. Primary source. - Related note on the spiritual-warfare episode: `/Users/courtneyrobertson/.youtube_analyses/XUPDzRSVgUE_who-invented-modern-spiritual-warfare.md` (Summary read only). - Named on air, no edition, date or page given: *Weaponized Religion: From Christian Identity to the N...* [00:53:41]; a war-game book by Totten [00:32:57]; an ancient history of the Jews referred to as "the antiquities" [00:02:20]; the William Branham Historical Research website and books page [00:27:51] (domain captioned three ways); authors named on the books page: John Collins, Charles Paisley, "Steven McGomery," John McKinnon [00:27:51]. - Scripture named: Galatians 4 [00:28:33], Jeremiah 29:11 [00:30:03], Psalm 72 [00:30:47], Matthew 7 or 25 [00:51:30], the Lord's Prayer [00:20:37], the Great Commission [00:21:20], Paul to the Corinthians [00:44:49], the "signs shall follow" and "evil and adulterous generation" sayings [00:40:21]–[00:41:04] (no chapter given). - Primary documents the genealogy would need, none cited in the episode: Totten's war-game book; Sandford-group curricula; Parham's writings; 1940s Latter Rain newspaper ads; period PAOC and Assemblies of God statements denouncing Latter Rain. ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - **Paragraph A.** Collins says the NAR's dominionism isn't new. He traces it to Latter Rain theology from around 1947, whose Joel's Army and Manifested Sons of God ideas he says IHOP KC reuses. The guest, who grew up in the PAOC, agrees the vocabulary is familiar but says he heard it as a spiritual army and a coming revival, not a literal one, and worries that the same ideas can slide toward physical dominion. - **Paragraph B.** A second line runs through British Israelism. Collins says Totten's books taught the idea at Sandford's group, Parham trained there and at Dowie's, and the militant framing entered early Pentecostalism with him. After most Pentecostals dropped British Israelism, Collins says, they kept the habit of reading Israel's promises and conquest texts as addressed to themselves. Both men say they were taught to read that way (Collins says his circles rejected British Israelism; the guest doesn't say), and the guest uses Jeremiah 29:11 and Psalm 72 to show how it misreads context. - **Paragraph C.** Both men then move from history to practice. They describe slogans, "anointing" talk, "decree and declare" and defense of leaders as ways to seek power, and each offers a personal test: whether he's defending a person or the text, whether his motive is to tear down or protect, and whether a doctrine passes "can I love my neighbor if I'm believing this?" Collins closes by saying his old group had "faith in faith." ## 📰 Newsletter Provenance claims are cheap to make and expensive to check, and episode 717 of the William Branham Historical Research podcast shows both sides. A lifelong PAOC member and a former Latter Rain-lineage believer compare notes on where Pentecostal dominionism comes from, and the conversation yields two dependable things: first-hand testimony that one reading habit ("every promise to Israel is for us") exists in both speakers' upbringings, and a list of named links (Totten, Sandford, Parham, Dowie) that anyone can go and check. It doesn't hand you the documents. (Inference, not from the episode: the transferable habit is the one WordPress contributors already use on forks and ports. A shared function name doesn't make two plugins the same project, and a changelog entry is a better link than a hunch. The episode doesn't mention WordPress.) ## ✅ Action items #### DevRel No signal. The episode touches no developer programs, docs or tooling. #### OSPO No signal. It has nothing on licensing, security or open source governance. #### Community - Inference, not from the source: the guest's two self-checks, whether you're defending a person or the text [00:43:17] and whether your motive is to discredit or to protect [00:44:49], fit a short moderation guideline for threads that criticize a project leader. A maintainer could adapt them as a pre-posting prompt. No other part of the episode transfers. #### WordPress No signal across Core, Training, Documentation, Polyglots, Accessibility, Hosting and the other subteams. #### The WPOCC (The WP Open Community Collective) No signal. The episode doesn't discuss funding, fellowships or governance. #### FAIR No signal. No package, metadata or distribution topic appears. ## 🧪 Hypotheses 1. **Terminology.** The phrases "Joel's Army" and "Manifested Sons of God" appear in published or recorded Latter Rain material dated before 1950, and each carries the same meaning (world conquest before Christ's return) that IHOP KC's usage carries. The guest's report that his circles used the same words for a spiritual army suggests meanings varied. 2. **Chain of custody.** Totten's war-game material was part of Sandford's instruction, and Parham's own writings show British Israelism content. The episode asserts both without evidence. 3. **Residual hermeneutic.** Pentecostal sources that read Israel's promises as promises to the reader cite Galatians-style adoption language at least as often as they cite British Israelite authors. The guest ties his own teaching to Galatians 4, not British Israelism [00:28:33]. 4. **Militancy baseline.** Latter Rain-lineage sermons use war and conquest imagery more often per thousand words than contemporary Assemblies of God sermons. Collins says Branham's language was militant [00:19:10], but "Onward Christian Soldiers" shows the baseline across denominations is not zero. 5. **Dissociation mechanism.** People who report non-physical, unverifiable religious frames also score higher on later endorsement of literal force. The episode offers this as opinion [00:19:10]. 6. **Latter Rain denunciation.** PAOC and Assemblies of God denunciations of Latter Rain appear in dated statements, and a congregation could openly claim Latter Rain before it joined the PAOC, as the guest reports [00:08:09]. ## 📊 Methodology - **H1 (terminology).** Build a dated corpus of Latter Rain periodicals and sermon transcripts, 1940s–1950s, and a second corpus of IHOP KC teaching. Code each use of the two phrases for meaning (spiritual only, mobilization, literal force). Falsifier: pre-1950 uses mean something different from the IHOP KC uses, or the phrases appear only after 1950. - **H2 (chain of custody).** Locate Totten's war-game book and Sandford-group curricula; search for overlap with Parham's writings. Record, for each link, the document, date and page. Falsifier: no document ties Totten to Sandford's curriculum. - **H3 (hermeneutic origin).** Citation analysis of Pentecostal texts that use the "promises are ours" reading. Count citations to British Israelite authors, to Galatians-adoption arguments, and to neither. Falsifier: the hermeneutic appears in dated sources with no British Israelite citation and a Galatians citation. - **H4 (baseline).** Sample 50 sermons per group, matched by decade, from Latter Rain-lineage and mainstream Pentecostal sources. Count military terms per thousand words and classify them (hymn, metaphor, literal). Falsifier: no difference between groups. - **H5 (mechanism).** A survey with validated scales for dissociation and attitudes toward force among current and former members of high-demand religious groups. This is the one hypothesis that needs human-subjects review. - **H6 (denunciation).** Archive search for PAOC and Assemblies of God position papers on Latter Rain and membership records for the guest's congregation. ## ❓ Questions - What document supports the 1947 date, and what happened that year in the account? [00:10:23] - Does the transcript's "came directly" mean documentary borrowing, personal contact, or shared source? [00:09:39] - Which link carries the most weight if it fails: Totten to Sandford, Sandford to Parham, or British Israelism to the hermeneutic? [00:33:41] - If the guest's circles used "Joel's Army" for a spiritual army, does the phrase belong in the lineage at all, or only the literal-force version? - Why does the guest raise Beal's prophecy over Jim Jones, and what would it show? Collins doesn't answer on air [00:05:17]. - How do the hosts reconcile "there's no other way to take it but a military way" [00:34:25] with the guest's spiritual-army reading [00:16:59]? - What counts as evidence against the genealogy? Collins offers an explanation for why adherents deny it [00:06:01], but no disconfirming test. - Which "heroes of the faith" from the 17th century onward hold the foundation, and in which texts? [00:35:11] ## 🔮 Future research - Trace the guest's Beal–Hawtin–Layzell timeline in period newspapers and church records, since he left it open [00:03:49]. - Identify the "Frank Sandford" curriculum and any Totten material in it. - Compare PAOC and Assemblies of God denunciation language with Latter Rain statements to see which doctrines were named. - Test whether the Azusa–Hebden analogy fits the Latter Rain case or only superficially resembles it. - Collect more first-hand accounts from PAOC members who heard "Joel's Army" as spiritual, to see whether the guest's reading is typical. - Check the reported Bickle quotation [00:15:29] against dated recordings or transcripts before anyone repeats it. ## 💡 Implications - **For the study of religious history.** Shared vocabulary, shared reading habits and shared ancestors are three different kinds of evidence. The episode shows all three and links them with narrative, not documents. Treat it as a map of claims to test. - **For discourse about movements.** The strongest data is insider testimony. Two people from different upbringings report the same hermeneutic, which is worth more than the genealogy built on top of it. - **For fairness to the position critiqued.** The guest's account that his circles read dominion as spiritual and revival-oriented is a counterweight a fair summary has to include. The critique's best form says the vocabulary can slide to literal readings, not that every user holds one. - **Policy, security, funding.** No signal. ## 🧠 Learning styles assessment - **Reading level:** Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 8.5, Flesch Reading Ease 70.3, computed on 8,965 words with timestamps and caption tags stripped, 439 sentences by my split, 20.4 words per sentence and 1.37 syllables per word. Caption punctuation is unreliable, so treat the grade as approximate. The vocabulary is plain; the load comes from unfamiliar proper nouns and movement terms. #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: nothing visual is described in the transcript; I can't see the video. Unknown whether any graphics appear. - Improve: a diagram of the two genealogies (Latter Rain to NAR; British Israelism to Parham to the hermeneutic) with each link labeled "documented" or "asserted." #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: strong. Conversational, with analogies (Batman, Star Wars, Hamburger Helper, the telephone game) and four laughter cues. - Improve: a 2-minute spoken recap of the two genealogies, since the second one is a six-step chain that's easy to lose by ear. #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: the guest defines "full gospel" [00:22:47] and the "Israel for today" idea in plain terms; Collins defines British Israelism [00:32:57]. - Improve: Latter Rain, Manifested Sons of God, Joel's Army, seven mountains and the NAR aren't defined for newcomers. A glossary in the description would help. #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: two small exercises appear: the "can I love my neighbor" doctrine test [00:48:31] and the defend-the-person self-check [00:43:17]. - Improve: a worksheet where listeners apply the love test and the "where does this verse's audience sit" test to one slogan they've heard. #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: the two genealogies are sequenced, and the guest names concrete counterexamples (Jeremiah 29:11, Psalm 72). - Improve: label each link with its evidence type. The Genealogy table in Main content does this and shows how few links carry documents. #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: two-person dialogue with agreements, corrections and a promised third episode [00:23:30]. - Improve: discussion prompts for a group, with a rule to separate "I heard this taught" from "this came from there." #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: reflective questions come up unprompted, including the guest's motive check [00:44:49]. - Improve: a journaling page mapping the listener's own phrases to scripture contexts. #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: the "cross-pollination" metaphor [00:06:44] is the one biological image. - Improve: extend it with care. Pollination implies a vector and a dated contact; the episode names few of either. ## 📊 Accessibility assessment This section assesses the video as a media object, using the captions and transcript only. I can't see the picture, so on-screen material is unknown. #### Screen reader semantics - Present: the title carries the episode number and series name; the speakers announce their names and the topic in the first two minutes [00:00:07]. - Gap: with auto-captions only and no speaker labels, a listener using captions can't tell the turn change at [00:15:29] or [00:23:30]. Page structure (chapters, description links) isn't visible to me. WCAG 1.3.1 (Info and Relationships), 2.4.6 (Headings and Labels). #### Keyboard navigation - Present: nothing in the transcript contradicts standard player controls. - Gap: unknown. The player is YouTube's, and I can't test focus order, chapter navigation or skip links from a transcript. WCAG 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.4.7. #### Contrast and readability - Present: unknown. No on-screen text, lower-thirds or title cards appear in the caption file. - Gap: if the video shows the website address or a "contribute" button, I can't verify contrast. WCAG 1.4.3, 1.4.11. #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: captions are YouTube's, so size and style are user-adjustable in the player. A plain-text transcript reflows at any zoom. - Gap: none found in the transcript. WCAG 1.4.4, 1.4.10, 1.4.12. #### Media and captions - Present: captions exist, and they mark four [laughter] cues and music. - Gap: they're auto-generated and garble proper nouns at least 15 times (Branham, Beall, Azusa, Hebden, Kuhlman, Bickle, Sandford, Parham, Dowie, Hawtin, Layzell and others; see the name table). The music at the start and end renders as "Heat. Heat." six times, likely a mislabel of the music (my inference). The website address appears three ways, so a viewer can't copy it. There are no speaker labels, and a turn switches mid-paragraph at [00:15:29]. Likely failures: WCAG 1.2.2 (Captions, Prerecorded, AA). A transcript exists in my capture but I can't confirm the page offers one (1.2.1). Audio description (1.2.5, AA) is unknown, and a talking-head conversation may need none. 1.4.2 (Audio Control): the opening and closing music is brief and I can't tell whether the player offers a stop. - Gap on instructions: the ad read says to click "the contribute button at the top" [00:27:51]. That depends on a visual location, which WCAG 1.3.3 (Sensory Characteristics) warns against. #### Forms and interactions - Present: no form in the video itself. - Gap: the calls to action (like, subscribe, contribute) refer to interface elements without naming them in text. WCAG 2.5.8 (Target Size) and 3.3.x don't apply to the video itself. #### Standards reference - Likely gaps: 1.2.2 (auto-captions with proper-noun errors, no speaker identification), 1.3.3 (location-based instruction). Unknown from transcript: 1.2.5, 1.4.2, 1.4.3, 2.1.1, 2.4.7. No gap found: 1.4.4, 1.4.10, 3.1.1 (the speech is English throughout, which I can infer but not confirm for the page language attribute). ## 🌍 DEIB assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: the discussion names Canadian detail (the PAOC, a Canada-wide revival prophecy, Psalm 72 applied to Canada's coasts) next to US movements, and it places Latter Rain on both sides of the border. - Improve: the frame stays within North American Protestant Pentecostal and charismatic history. No non-Western Pentecostal voices, no Jewish voices or scholarship appear, although the central topic is how Christians use Israel's promises and a British Israelism claim about Jewish lineage. Josephus appears only as an analogy for "going to the source" [00:02:20]. #### Inclusive language - Present: the guest frames his stance as a personal observation and asks for questions to be welcome [00:52:15]. - Improve: "disassociate" stands in for a clinical term and is applied to groups of believers [00:18:27]; "went kind of nuts" and "spiraled out of control" [00:19:10] describe people in language that can stigmatize mental illness; "cult" [00:24:56], "nonsense" [00:27:07] and "community of wizards" [00:41:48] label groups and could close off listeners who still belong to them. Idioms ("word salad," "Hamburger Helper") carry meaning that non-native English listeners may miss. #### Neurodiversity support - Present: the speakers repeat their central contrasts (real versus "Hamburger Helper"; person versus Jesus), which helps retention. The guest announces he's "trying to start wrapping it up" [00:44:49]. - Improve: no chapter markers or summaries appear in the captions. The Josephus aside [00:02:20], the Batman analogy [00:13:20] and the six-step British Israelism chain delivered orally [00:32:57]–[00:33:41] tax working memory. #### Representation - Present: two named speakers, John and Andrew. Women appear only as subjects of the stories (Beal, Kuhlman), never as voices. - Improve: invite a woman who left or stayed in the same traditions, or a historian of the movement, to add a view that's neither Collins's nor the guest's. #### Psychological safety - Present: the tone is warm and the host says he disagrees theologically with his Pentecostal friends but values the talk [00:00:49]. The guest repeatedly asks for motives to be checked [00:44:49]. - Improve: no content warning precedes the exit narrative, the Jim Jones mention or the violence attributed to a named leader. Collins reports "hate mail" [00:14:03], which tells us the topic is contested for viewers who still attend. A description note on how to find support after leaving a high-demand group would help, though the transcript names none. ## ✅ Logical validity #### Strong reasoning - **Self-correction with detail [00:03:49]–[00:05:17].** The guest names exactly what he got wrong (Saskatchewan versus British Columbia, an unconfirmed overlap between Hawtin and Beal) and presents the Azusa comparison as a question. It's calibrated and checkable. - **Context test on Jeremiah 29:11 and Psalm 72 [00:30:03]–[00:31:31].** The guest shows the audience (Israel in exile) and the later use (a Canada prophecy), so a reader can verify the mismatch against the text. This supports the claim that the "promises are ours" reading ignores context. - **Convergent testimony [00:34:25].** Two speakers from different upbringings both report the same reading habit, and Collins says his circles rejected British Israelism. That supports presence of the habit in at least two places. It supports nothing about its origin. - **Hedged speech.** "in my opinion" [00:09:39], "it's my opinion. People can take it or leave it" [00:19:10], "if I remember correctly" [00:32:57] mark opinion and memory as such. I don't count these as fallacies. - **Textual observation at [00:47:04].** "Have I not done" is checkable against the passage; I take no position on the doctrine built on it. - **Named, checkable nodes.** Totten, Sandford, Parham and Dowie are specific enough to test in archives. That is a strength of form, though the evidence isn't presented here. #### The genealogy as an argument Influence is not identity. A shared phrase is not shared doctrine. The genealogy needs three things at each link: contact, transmission of the specific content, and no competing source. Applying that: - **Supported by the transcript:** that a "promises to Israel are for us" reading exists in at least two settings, one of which rejected British Israelism [00:34:25], [00:28:33] (two first-hand reports); that the PAOC denounced Latter Rain and that the guest's congregation openly claimed Latter Rain before joining it [00:07:27]–[00:08:09] (first-hand and secondhand); that Collins's own group used "overcomer" for an elite tier [00:41:48] (first-hand); that militant imagery was part of the childhood hymn repertoire and Branham's sermons [00:19:10] (first-hand). - **Only asserted:** Latter Rain to Joel's Army to IHOP KC "directly" [00:09:39]; 1947 [00:10:23]; Totten to Sandford [00:33:41]; Parham's absorption of British Israelism [00:33:41]; British Israelism as the origin of the hermeneutic [00:33:41]; the 17th-century "heroes" [00:35:11]; the dissociation mechanism [00:19:10]; Beal's prophecy over Jim Jones [00:05:17]. - **Cuts against the genealogy as stated:** the guest's report that "Joel's Army" language reached him as a spiritual-army idea [00:10:23], [00:16:59], so the phrase didn't carry the same doctrine in his circles. Collins himself says Wimber doesn't use "kingdom" as NAR figures do [00:14:03] and that the building blocks were "compatible with people who weren't even in the New Apostolic Reformation" [00:35:11]. That second remark means militant readings can come from shared habits, so militancy can't discriminate NAR descent from other causes. - **Competing source the transcript surfaces:** the guest grounds "Israel for today" in Galatians 4 [00:28:33], an independent route to the same reading that doesn't pass through British Israelism. #### Fallacies 1. **Slippery slope ("logical conclusion"), [00:10:23], [00:17:44], [00:32:15].** Each time the speaker moves from a doctrine to its extreme without naming who took the intermediate steps. The guest's own testimony shows many people stop at "spiritual army." *Fix:* name the adherents and dates at each step, or state that the extreme is a possibility, not a pathway. 2. **Immunizing the claim against counter-testimony, [00:06:01], [00:27:07].** Collins says people who split forget their shared past, and peers who say "It wasn't like that" never connected the dots. A denial then counts as confirmation. *Fix:* name the independent record (a dated sermon, ad or statement) that would confirm the lineage, so the claim can fail. 3. **Hasty generalization, [00:35:11].** "Heroes of the faith ... from the 17th century onward" share the foundation, with no figure named. *Fix:* give two or three named cases or say "some." 4. **False dilemma/overstatement, [00:34:25].** "There's no other way to take it but a military way" is contradicted by the guest's spiritual reading of the same verses [00:28:33], [00:16:59]. *Fix:* say it's a natural reading of the text read in isolation. 5. **Equivocation on "army," "dominion," "militant."** The terms slide between a hymn metaphor, a spiritual army, a literal army and "actual bloodshed" [00:15:29], [00:19:10], [00:32:15]. The literal sense rests on one unsourced attribution. *Fix:* separate metaphor, mobilization and coercion, and cite one source per rung. 6. **Genetic fallacy and guilt by lineage on Wimber, [00:13:20]–[00:14:47].** Collins grants that Wimber means "kingdom" differently, then reads the "components" as "nothing but the same thing." The Batman analogy illustrates that combination matters but doesn't show Wimber combined them. *Fix:* point to the specific Wimber text and show the overlap. 7. **Possible straw man, [00:50:45].** The heart-surgery question assumes the position forbids medical treatment, but the guest's own telling has the speaker treat the shingles for 3 days. One unnamed case, relayed secondhand, also can't carry a generalization. The guest hedges ("maybe a miracle... I don't know"), so I count the anecdote as hedged and the rhetorical question as the weak step. *Fix:* quote the speaker's stated rule on treatment. 8. **Motive attribution, [00:36:43], [00:46:19].** "It's really not about wanting the presence of God... It's about seeking power and control" and the claim that preachers think they're the faithful ones are inferences about other people's motives, stated as settled in the first case. *Fix:* cite the behavior that shows it, and state "I see X" instead of "it's about Y." 9. **Unsupported causal clause, [00:23:30].** "when Jim Jones left the Methodist church, he left because it was during the height of the Later movement" may assert a cause, but the evidence (newspaper ads showing how to identify Latter Rain churches) speaks to labels, not motives. The clause is also grammatically broken, so I flag it as possibly incomplete speech, not a confirmed fallacy. *Fix:* separate the timing claim from any claim about why he left. 10. **Association left unexplained, [00:05:17].** The Beal–Jones–founding-pastors link is raised as significant, but neither speaker says what it would show. It's a question, not an argument, so I count it as an open gap. #### Tone of voice Warm, confessional and collegial. Both men use self-deprecation ("I dive into a lot of areas that I really don't yet know what I'm talking about" [00:01:36]) and humor (the Batman and vaccine jokes). Collins is more assertive on history and more vivid on judgment ("nonsense," "wizards"); the guest is more tentative on history ("I think it's 6 and 7") and firmer on personal conclusions ("it scares me a little" [00:38:53]). Both frame criticism as concern for the church and say so outright [00:44:49]. ## 🛡️ DARVO analysis Not applicable to this source. No one is accused of abuse and no one defends against such an accusation; the nearest item, the guest's general description of followers who minimize a leader's exposed sins [00:42:31], names no incident. ## 🎯 Conclusion - **Bottom line.** The episode argues that Pentecostal dominionism comes from Latter Rain theology and from British Israelism by way of Parham, and that a "promises are ours" reading is the shared residue. It's strongest as testimony: two men from different circles report the same reading habit, and one of them reports that "Joel's Army" language reached him as a spiritual idea. It's weakest as history, since no link in either genealogy carries a document and 1947 carries no source. The guest's account and the host's thesis disagree about whether the army was ever physical, and the episode leaves that unresolved. - **Practical next steps for readers.** Check five things before repeating a claim: the 1947 date [00:10:23], the Totten–Sandford–Parham chain [00:32:57]–[00:33:41], the Bickle bloodshed attribution [00:15:29], the Beal prophecy over Jim Jones [00:05:17], and the 17th-century "heroes" [00:35:11]. Treat the guest's report of how the vocabulary sounded in a PAOC church as primary testimony. If you want the episode's method, apply "contact, content, no competing source" to each link. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — The Pentecostal Roots of Dominionism Explained | Pentecostal Secrets | 717 > Density: 2–5 Literature atoms (H3), 0–3 Permanent candidates (H4). > Defaults: 3 Literature, 1 Permanent. Resonance filter: if you can't > articulate in one line why a claim matters, drop it. > > Konik claim-header rules: present tense, declarative, ≤10 words when > possible, searchable, unique, mirrors annotation focus if present. > > Atomicity: one declarative sentence per atom. "and"/"also" → split. > > Tag pool: #bmf · #addendum · #xref · #articleseed · #storystem · #share · #aphorisms ### 📚 Literature atoms (H3) #### [H1] Collins calls the NAR rebranded Latter Rain > [!quote] [00:09:39] > New Apostolic Reformation really isn't anything new in my opinion. They've just rebranded what was latter reign and some of the core concepts before the split happened. **Context and use**: - [00:09:39], the thesis statement, flagged by Collins as opinion. - The claim the rest of the episode tries to support. Use it as the test case for "contact, content, no competing source" at each link. **Tags**: #xref #articleseed <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H2] Dropped doctrines leave building blocks behind > [!quote] [00:33:41] > But by the time that they abandoned that notion, they had already created all this building blocks of theology. **Context and use**: - [00:33:41], after the Totten–Sandford–Parham chain. - States the residue mechanism. Untested here: it needs evidence that the blocks came from British Israelism and not from Galatians-style adoption language, which the guest uses at [00:28:33]. **Tags**: #xref <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H3] Promise transfer treats believers as Israel > [!quote] [00:30:47] > you can take any promise that was made to Israel and apply it to you because you are in a sense Israel because you've been adopted as an heir **Context and use**: - [00:30:47], the guest describing the reading he critiques with Jeremiah 29:11 and Psalm 72. - A clear statement of the hermeneutic that both speakers say they were taught, and the most portable item in the episode for anyone auditing how a text's audience gets handled. **Tags**: #xref #aphorisms <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H4] An elite-tier vocabulary shows up in first-hand memory > [!quote] [00:41:48] > We've got the algebra. They've got the ABCs is how they would say it in in my group. **Context and use**: - [00:41:48], Collins on the word "overcomer," tied to Branham's algebra remark at [00:24:13]. - First-hand evidence that one group used a two-tier model of believers. It supports the vocabulary, not the lineage to Joel's Army. **Tags**: #xref #share <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [H5] A motive check comes before the critique > [!quote] [00:44:49] > Am I talking about it or sharing about it because I want to discredit or tear somebody down? **Context and use**: - [00:44:49], the guest closing in on his main advice. - The one item in the episode that transfers to community work without translation. It pairs with the defend-the-person test at [00:43:17]. **Tags**: #aphorisms #xref <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### 🧠 Atomic split pad #### [P1] A shared phrase proves contact, not shared doctrine **Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): Two groups using the same phrase shows they met, and it doesn't show they mean the same thing. **Evidence pointer**: [[#H1]]; the guest's report that Joel's Army reached him as a spiritual army [00:10:23], [00:16:59]. **Scope & conditions**: Holds wherever you can find at least one user of the phrase who defines it differently. Fails when you have dated definitions on both sides that match. **Links** (≥1 with annotation): - [[Chain of custody for claims]] — because extends - [[Argument from silence]] — because contrasts on what absence can prove <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [P2] A genealogy needs a document at every link **Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): A lineage argument is only as strong as its least documented link, however vivid the rest. **Evidence pointer**: [[#H2]]; the 12-link table in Main content. **Scope & conditions**: Applies to claims of descent between ideas. Doesn't apply to testimony about what a group taught, which is evidence of presence, not origin. **Links** (≥1 with annotation): - [[Unsourced-rule audit]] — because extends - [[Documentation debt]] — because applies-in open source governance `proof_state: working` <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> #### [P3] A reading habit can outlive the doctrine that produced it **Claim** (one sentence, Courtney's voice): A hermeneutic can persist after a group abandons the doctrine it came from, so tracing doctrine alone misses the habit. **Evidence pointer**: [[#H2]], [[#H3]] **Scope & conditions**: Collins's hypothesis, untested here. Needs a competing-source check, since adoption language in Galatians 4 supplies a second route to the same reading [00:28:33]. **Links** (≥1 with annotation): - [[Technical debt in conventions]] — because applies-in codebases where an old rule survives its reason `proof_state: working` <!-- atomicity: 1 idea ✓ --> ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Verify the name corrections in the Main content table (Branham, Beall, Hawtin, Layzell, Azusa, Hebden, Kuhlman, Bickle, Sandford, Parham, Dowie, Josephus, Totten's first name, "Steven McGomery") against sources before citing any quotation. #fleeting #inbox - [F2] Identify the speaker and the context for "Brantley" at [00:15:29]. #fleeting #inbox - [F3] Find the document or event behind "1947" at [00:10:23]. #fleeting #inbox - [F4] Find primary sources for Totten, Sandford's curriculum and Parham's attendance at Sandford's and Dowie's [00:32:57]–[00:33:41]. #fleeting #inbox - [F5] Find the original source for the Bickle "actual bloodshed" attribution at [00:15:29]; treat it as unverified until located. #fleeting #inbox - [F6] Confirm which Jim Jones is meant at [00:05:17] and [00:23:30], and whether Collins said Beal prophesied over him in an earlier episode. #fleeting #inbox - [F7] Check the verse behind "these signs shall follow them that believe" and the "evil and adulterous generation" saying [00:40:21]–[00:41:04]; the transcript gives no chapter. #fleeting #inbox - [F8] Article seed: apply "contact, content, no competing source" to three plugin-fork lineage claims in WordPress and report which links have a changelog or commit behind them. #articleseed #fleeting #inbox ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Look up the primary sources for the 1947 date and the Totten–Sandford–Parham chain before citing this episode — research, 45 min #things - [ ] Verify the name corrections and the Bickle attribution before quoting this note anywhere — research, 20 min #things <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/The Pentecostal Roots of Dominionism Explained Pentecostal Secrets 717.md|The Pentecostal Roots of Dominionism Explained | Pentecostal Secrets | 717 by Leaving the Message]] ## Highlights - [00:08:55] the stuff that is going on, all the stuff that's happening. And I'm still finding myself at this stage in my life in my 40s coming back and wanting to look at what the Bible says, what what is true and how do I reconcile the history of things that have happened uh positions that people or groups have held and try to make sense of it from a biblical understanding, not just going along with it because that's what I've heard my whole life. >> Yeah. And that's really what interests me about this particular subject. So we're talking about dominionism. Whenever I go back through the theologies that the people were introducing into the movement, you can [00:09:39] tie those directly to some of the New Apostolic Reformation structures that exist today. New Apostolic Reformation really isn't anything new in my opinion. They've just rebranded what was latter reign and some of the core concepts before the split happened. And some of the early concepts was like Joel's army. So if you go to IHOP KC, you're looking at Joel's army, manifested sons of God. Well, all of that came directly from latter reign. So you had a group of people who before the split happened, they were starting to get so supercharged with their theology that they thought they were going to conquer the world in Jesus' name and then Jesus would return. And that's how the Joel's army manifested sons of God began to take shape. Now, not everybody adopted ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m49gvey36zyy13rncff5q1c5)) - Note: [H1] Collins calls the NAR rebranded Latter Rain - Tags: atom/literature/h1 - [00:30:47] then taking that kind of idea and applying it to anyone today, saying, well, you can take any promise that was made to Israel and apply it to you because you are in a sense Israel because you've been adopted as an heir when you know Jesus as your savior. And you can take different things like even uh Psalm 72 was a big one about having dominion from sea to sea. And if you read through that like that was a verse that was used in the constitution of Canada. And it's been a prophetic word in the circles I've been raised up for Canada my whole life because we have the Pacific coast, the Atlantic coast, we [00:31:31] have the St. Lawrence Seaway and Hudson's Bay like north north to south east to west and the verbiage looks like it can apply directly to us as a nation. And then taking that and saying well that is proof that Canada's going to have revival. Canada's going to be a a Christian nation. But it's like but it's it's not about us having dominion. It's about God having dominion. And it's about recognizing his place, his authority over his creation, right? It's not something that has to be twisted in a way that you make apply to yourself when it's not even about you. And just ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m49gvm8m7q992a98nyrzrstp)) - Note: [H3] Promise transfer treats believers as Israel - Tags: atom/literature/h3 - [00:33:41] was used for strategy at during that era. His books and his language were used as instruction materials in Frank Sanford's cult in Maine. Charles Fox Parm as you know went to Frank Samford's cult and John Dowi's cult. So he's being trained with the gen the British Israel concept and it's being taught in the militant way. So as this is entering into Pentecostalism, it's being entered into Pentecostalism in the militant way. Now fast forward through the years, many Pentecostals decided that they don't believe British Israelism. But by the time that they abandoned that notion, they had already created all this building blocks of theology. And so there were many Pentecostals who were [00:34:25] teaching much like I described this blessing for Israel is also a blessing for us. And so I I grew up in circles for for example who would never agree British Israelism at all, but they would read an old covenant passage thinking that it applied to a modern time or a modern uh politic political issue. So we were taught to read the Bible as though every passage was written both to Israel and to us, especially from the Old Testament. When you do this and you read those militant verses that are literally talking about wars and conquering of nations as they're making their way into their territory, there's no other way to take it but a military way. And so the problem as we fast forward into the New ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m49gvhaskft32fvk6ssy3x4z)) - Note: [H2] Dropped doctrines leave building blocks behind - Tags: atom/literature/h2 - [00:41:04] And so therefore, you individually must seek for those signs. Or these signs must follow. These signs shall follow those that believe. Therefore, you must go to this anointed person and he will give them to you. You can add things to it and you make it sound entirely different. When you do that, you'll never understand the verse. an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, which that's also in the Bible. Those two are actually incompatible, but you have to add to it. The the early church, the way they looked at the gifts was that God is blessing us as a community. God is showing these things that we're we're God's people and he's doing this. It's not that each individual person tried to become a wizard within the within the community that they're in, but this has turned [00:41:48] into a community of wizards in the modern era. You have to go to the convention. You've got to learn from the apostle. It gets really, really weird when you think about it. But that same theme applies to the word overcomer. I can't tell you how many times I heard the word overcomer in my language. When I go back and I read just the passages that are talking about being an overcomer, it means nothing like that. They trained me to believe. It wasn't these end time mature sons like they're teaching in Joel's army or you know we we call ourselves the bride. We're the overcomer. Meaning that we're a level above the other Christians. We've got the algebra. They've got the ABCs is how they would say it in in my group. And ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m49gvpq66w2tedf1mqs6nzfx)) - Note: [H4] An elite-tier vocabulary shows up in first-hand memory - Tags: atom/literature/h3 - [00:44:04] focused on or is it Jesus? I think that's really the what comes down to the heart of it is so many people are finding the the security of their faith in what these people are saying and who these people are presenting themselves as instead of who Jesus is and what the Bible says about him and how we can know him for ourselves in relationship as our savior. then it gets twisted in that way that we're lifting up that person, that leader instead of holding true to what the Bible says. And when we do that, it is so easy to push for the idea of, [00:44:49] well, I just you just need to have that power and I need to be able to prove that this person has that power of the Holy Spirit instead of really understanding who the Holy Spirit is and and his place in our lives as believers. What really comes down to me like as a kind of trying to start wrapping it up is that understanding of what's my motivation is am I speaking about this? Am I talking about it or sharing about it because I want to discredit or tear somebody down? Or am I concerned for the church that they not be led astray? If my motivation is to tear somebody down, I just don't like this person. and I I ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m49gvs12d93d1rw9k4ar1z6f)) - Note: [H5] A motive check comes before the critique - Tags: atom/literature/h3