But now comes the most shocking reality. This is the terrible truth. Yeshua (Jesus) said, “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones [minor children] which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he was drowned in the depths of the sea.” Matt. 18:6 He also said, “…woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.” Matt 26:24. Yes, those who condemned our God-given events offended these “little ones,” who are now named “minors,” and it would be better that the state would be cast into the sea and drowned. To create the mystery of God into a crime is a death knell for the state. Whether it be state officials, parents or friends, those who turn children, or anyone else, against the Anointing of God will perish in the final fires. These flames are already licking at the heels of this beast.
I will carefully explain the seriousness of this. I will share with the reader what occurred behind the scenes. The two young women that I was accused over by the state of New Mexico, on their own, had each come to me and shared with me that God told them to request of me this favor. I would pray for them and they requested to be unclothed. I did not request this of them, but because of my education I did understand the benefits this request could have if professionally managed. I earned a Master’s Degree in religion at Loma Linda University, which is a medical university for training physicians, and I learned healing in various forms during this period in my life. I was condemned and imprisoned for one of the principles I learned at LLU.
The following quotation is a description and explanation of the science behind the touch of healing by placing my hand on the upper sternum and clavicle area for healing purposes which came with the Spirit of the Anointing when He appeared in me in the year 2000. This is the healing touch that I carried out with A.S. for which I was sentenced to 10 years in prison. I have inserted a few account details in brackets within the quotation below:
There is an ache at the center of the chest, called the grief point. In it lies the personal history of our pain — the fire, the loss, the impermanence we cannot control — and our unwillingness to expose it. Many do not acknowledge or even notice this ache. It is a pain we wish not to see, a constant reminder of how painful it is to be closed. We only mention this ache when it becomes too great to deny, when escape mechanisms are insufficient to suppress our grief.
This point has correlations in many healing technologies. It exists in all traditions which view the body as an energy system. It is the heart center, a point on the chest, on the sternum, roughly between the nipples and about two or three inches above where the rib cage comes together. A simple pressure exerted in that very sensitive area connects the mind/body with the heart center. [When I placed my hand on this point on the sternum/clavicle area, where, for the first time ever in my life, I began spontaneously placing my hand after Father spoke the Spirit of Messiah into me, I could feel in my own sternum area a warmth of healing love from the Anointing’s heart, going out of me to them. Many were able to take in the Anointing’s love and healing touch, in varying depths, while others seemed unable to let it in.]
This focal point where we hold much grief may be extremely sensitive. Investigate the breastbone to find this point of sensitivity. For many when they find it, it will be unmistakable. There may even be a slight indentation there. After you discover the grief point, place your thumb onto it. Obviously there is the sternum, the bone plate, but there is also something subtler which is perceived — a desire to protect yourself, to stay in control, to push away feelings. All the moments of hiding, of protecting ourselves from life, add layer upon layer over the heart. Thousands of such moments accumulating to become thick as armor. A density of self-protection and an unwillingness to enter directly the pain so long suppressed, which pushes back as you push into it. A resistance to life, a resistance to healing. The resistance of a lifetime pushing back.
This ache in the chest is like a compass that directs us toward the path of the heart. We are all grieving the Beloved. We are all aching our birthright, longing to be free. Our homesickness for God drives us from sensation to sensation, from thought to thought, emotion to emotion. But, when together we enter our grief, there is the combined strength to heal. When we enter the grief point, so sensitive when discovered that it is hardly able to be touched, we allow each other the space to let go of whatever is appropriate to release. We do not extract the pain from another, but simply offer that into which it can be expressed and healed. Working together at the grief point, opening to long-disregarded pain, ancient sufferings begin to melt. [My hand on a person’s grief point was an invitation for them to release their pain to me so I could bear it for them and heal them.]
As the grief point transforms into the touchpoint of the heart, we find ourselves offering its pain to the Beloved. One of the remarkable qualities of this is that when you have completed your process and take your finger away, you may still feel very distinct sensations where the grief point has become the touch point for the heart. [Some people shared this with me, that after I had taken my hand away, often the distinct sensations of the gentle pressure of my hand, remained.] Condensed from “Embracing the Beloved,” by Steven and Ondrea Levine
The young women told me that God had put this on them to ask of me. And, God also confirmed this to my heart and constrained me to fulfill their request. It was not illegal for them to take their clothing off and no sexual parts were ever touched. These events were wholly about spiritual healing. But the Scriptures say that in the end of days, the beast would come against the conscience, setting himself up as God over the conscience. This act is of a most serious nature for the entire nation and world.
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 (the human soul), shewing himself that he is God [over the conscience]. 2 Thess 2:3-4
This is what has happened and is happening nationwide. The one who exalts himself above the conscience of man is now ruling. On every level the courts rule against people of faith setting themselves up as God over the conscience. The day of “That Wicked” has come, for he is antichrist who does this.
I was instructed by God to give L.S. a healing procedure more involved than A.S., her older sister. L.S. requested me to put pressure on her which was against her rib cage. This procedure may have been similar to the healing procedure Elijah used in 1 Kings 17:17-24, and to the procedure Elisha used in 2 Kings 4:32-33, except that my procedure was far less invasive and I did not touch anything of a sexual nature, which Elisha and Elijah may have done. But the main point here is that it was God who instructed me to do what I was asked to do by L.S. I shared the procedure in my trial and the jury acquitted me over L.S. The jury then convicted me, and the judge gave me ten years prison time, for A.S. whose healing procedure required far less, and was for less time. She was also the older sister, as I have said. The state with its astonishing reasoning may make some confusing sense out of this strange judgment, but I cannot. The very best thing that can be said of it is that it is utter confusion (Babylon).
I have never faulted the state for its opinion of me. One cannot expect the beast to understand God’s ways and movements. But I have faulted the state for lying and hugely contorting the events through deceitful statecraft and confusion. I have faulted the state because of its lying profession of liberty and justice for all, and freedom of conscience. The state is rightly faulted for its deception and corruption. Why was I not given a fair trial? At least the beast should have been able to work that out. The judge was responsible to insure that the trial was carried out fairly. I should have at least been able to tell what actually occurred, and why, instead of having to constantly put up with the state and the media throwing their tar balls at me. But they had no intention of letting me get away. The DA stated that if there was a hung jury he would bring me to trial two more times. They want what they want and that is total submission to them, regardless of conscience. In this they proclaim themselves to be God, and they sit in the temple of God. The prophesied dark day has come.
But now comes the most terrible reality. When the state, and some of the public, surmised all of their most poisonous and perverted imaginings onto me and charged me and my children over the heinous crimes it had contrived for this one spiritual healing event and for “contributing to their delinquency,” and then put me in prison for it, the state by doing so, accused the minor ladies of seducing me into a crime. The two young women were terribly shocked that the state would take their friend and “father” away over something purely of a spiritual nature, and that now they were responsible for it. And what they requested was not even against the law. Their purity was made to look perverted by the state, and invented into a violent sex crime by Judge Gerald Baca, and the district attorney, Donald Gallegos. Was it their own corrupt religion through which they looked to judge me? Perhaps they were looking at their own dark souls and projecting that data onto my image. I ask the question, Are these men sex perverts in their own minds, so that is how I look to them? Do these men frequent pornography pages and these pages colored their thinking about me? God only knows the answer to these questions, but in the great judgment it will all be made clear. I doubt very much that these men or their public that condemned me would tell us their secrets. But in the great judgment their secrets will become known.
But there is more. God showed me that from heaven’s point of view, the DA is guilty of sexually molesting these two girls in his office. I do not mean to say that the DA touched the girls somewhere physically. No. His crime was greater than that. He violated their minds and hearts by perverting their love and faith in God into a “sex crime” of the state, and then he punished their “father” and friend for the crime that they had initiated. Before God, he is guilty of accusing them of “criminal sexual contact,” and for being predators upon their “father” and friend. In a spiritual sense, the two girls were raped by the state in the District Attorney’s “secret chambers.” It was a rape of their spirit and trust, for he turned their innocent request into a sex crime and condemned them by doing this, since the “crime” had been initiated by them. This is molestation of the highest order.
By way of his convoluted and distorted reasoning, Mr. Gallegos actually, believe it or not, professed to be helping the young ladies, and doing so by illegally misapplying a state law, or by upholding some imaginary law that in reality does not even exist – except perhaps in his over-fertilized imagination. Will someone please explain to me how such actions can be a help to these girls? How is it helpful to fallaciously attach to them, for the rest of their lives, the stigma of being sexual-abuse victims, which in many foreign cultures is so egregious that women are shunned and expelled from their society and very often encouraged to commit suicide? How, Mr. Gallegos, was this helping them? Is this some intellectually convulsed interpretation of “help” with which I am unfamiliar?
The end of it all was that in reality he was only helping himself, while offending the children. His self-glory and the political fortunes resulting from another “conviction,” justified or falsified, seemed more important to him than justice, or the real laws he was sworn to uphold.
This was evident by his strutting in court, boasting of his conviction of me. And furthermore, in God’s eyes, and in reality, District Attorney Donald Gallegos, state attorneys Emilio Chávez and Tomás Benavides, and Judge Baca are all guilty of molesting these two young women in their court and violently tearing away their civil rights, and God will not let this hypocrisy pass by without being avenged. And even more — from God’s point of view, not only are the judge and DA and his state attorneys responsible for sexual assault upon my children by the act of inferring that upon me, but all those who voted these men into office bear responsibility, also. We are responsible for the people that we place in office. We are responsible for what they do.
Supposedly one of the mainstays of democratic strength in America is an informed electorate. But are they informed? Again, from God’s perspective, if the electorate has the opportunity to learn the truth about the morals and character of the officials for whom they are voting, but do not avail themselves of that opportunity, they are quite logically and spiritually held responsible by God for the choices they make in the secret place of the voting booth. Judgment comes to each soul in many varied and often unobservable ways, but come to each soul it surely does, and from that Judge’s ruling there is no appeal.
There were, however, events in my trial that were very troubling for me, not the least of which was the state’s heedless disregard for their own laws. It seemed as though the judge was part of a collusion; a conspiracy to incriminate me. In my trial, early on, it was very well established that I had no sexual contact with the two young ladies. Because of this clear testimony, my attorney entered a motion to dismiss, in an effort to end the trial proceedings, since it was abundantly clear by the testimony of the state’s own witnesses (and later, by the judge, himself), that it was essentially a vapor crime. But still the judge denied the motion to dismiss, allowing the state to continue with its fallacious charges and procedures.
My thoughts were, I am charged with criminal sexual contact. That has been disproved, so why am I still in court, and what am I now being charged with? The answer never came. Was the state convicting me of something else; of a crime that wasn’t a crime by law or any other logical reasoning, but “a crime” that only offended a covert agenda they had — religious, political or otherwise? I now believe that the agenda was religious and political and that the trail led to higher persons than our own DA. We were told by CYFD that it went as least as high as the governor.
My attorney was a public defender, appointed by the court — the state of New Mexico — to represent me. My attorney explained to me that we would only be dealing with what the state had directly charged me with — touching the girls sexually — and we would not be delving into any non-pertinent subjects such as religious beliefs, because that would be going “beyond the scope,” which was “illegal.” I told her at the time that if the state wanted to get into our religion, then I would need a three-month trial to explain everything. Well, the judge then clearly redefined my charges to be something else, of which I had no idea, since he neglected to share that redefinition with me or my attorney. In his actions, Judge Baca, exhibiting a high degree of moral turpitude, inarguably aided the state in its opprobrious conduct.
Why was it so important, even from the outset, for these Roman Catholics to attack me and my congregation in a manner violating even their own laws? Why is it that Roman Catholics become so exercised, excited and heated over a grilled cheese sandwich that looks like it has the image of the Virgin Mary on it, or when one of their plaster images starts to bleed, but when the Anointing manifests itself in a man it’s time to burn him at the stake or crucify him? And why Mr. Gallegos, can I not say that God has anointed me for a specific mission without offending you, but your Pope can claim to be God, calling himself the “Holy Father” which is the name only for God, or Vicar of Christ? Mr. Gallegos do you know what vicar means? It means substitute for Christ; someone acting in His place or stead whose word is taken to be as the word of Christ, Himself; speaking on His behalf with assumed authority by rule of agency. Why cannot I be named Messiah, which in the Hebrew simply means “anointed,” as in anointed for a mission, as all true Christians are, as I told you in court, but the Pope can be God and the replacement of Christ (the anointed)? So Mr. Gallegos, with respect, I have no apologies to make to you or your court.
It was more than obviously apparent that if I could not be tried honestly, without the state resorting to imaginary, nonexistent inventions against me, that that, in itself, was sufficient proof that there was no crime committed – except the “crime” they manufactured out of whole cloth from their own imaginations or from the dark recesses of their own evil surmisings. In other words, if the plain evidence of the case, submitted to the law alone, was insufficient to obtain my conviction, and overt dishonesty and lies were needed to accomplish the fact, that would indisputably prove that the state and judiciary obviously had other motives in mind that had not the least relationship to justice. I was an offense to them, and that was enough. It didn’t matter what the law actually said.
The state then began to insinuate, without presentation of proof or evidence of any kind, suspicious activities on my part. We seemed to have devolved into a legal nether-land of trial-by-inference rather than a trial-by-law, as was clearly set forth by the judge’s comment, quoted here directly from the trial transcript:
I looked at the sufficiency of the evidence and I felt that it was sufficient to allow the jury to consider, although the victim, the alleged victim, in the matter had said that she was not touched in the intimate parts of her body. The description provided allowed the jury to make that inference. Dec. 30 Tr 4 lines 11-14 [emphasis supplied]
I was charged with “criminal sexual contact of a minor.” It was proven that there was no “sexual contact.” So now the jury was allowed to “guess” that there might have been. As an example of the incomprehensible perfidy of the court, the judge actually spoke the following words into the record:
And, as finders of fact, they [the jury] were permitted to decide whether or not, in their understanding and…under the instruction they were given by this Court, whether or not there was a touching that was contrary to law. Dec. 30 Tr 4 line 15 [emphasis supplied]
As bizarre as this may sound, he actually did say that, and even though I was charged with “criminal sexual contact,” – which, according to the law and to any rational human mind would mean, by definition, actually “touching,” the judge boldly stated that even if I did not touch the girls in places deemed illegal, I was still guilty if the jury could imagine that I was. And why now did they “infer” that I was “not guilty” over L.S. but they inferred that I was guilty over A.S.? My head utterly spins over the total incredibility and lawlessness of the whole thing. I personally believe that our generation is mentally ill. What other explanation could there be? While on trial, I often thought to myself, “These people are children playing court. They don’t even know what they are doing.”
Judge Baca said, in essence, that although the state’s own witness had declared under oath that “she was not touched in the intimate parts of her body,” the jury was allowed to infer that for which there was no evidence from which to draw that inference.
So, we have a judge who makes the credulous claim that the jury can infer something for which there is no foundation in fact or evidence from which to make that inference, yet they must infer that an illegal act took place with nothing to establish that fact in law or testimony. This would be like an observer viewing a field of tulips and inferring the farmer was actually poisoning children, because the observer saw a child picking some of them – the lack of evidence does not support the crime. This strangeness is glaring and foolishly obvious.
There is a Latin phrase in legal terminology, sine qua non, which means, loosely, without this, you cannot get that; without evidence, you cannot make an inference. But that did not in the least deter Judge Gerald Baca.
Judge Baca: “And, as finders of fact, they [the jury] were permitted to decide whether or not in their understanding and…under the instruction they were given by this Court, whether or not there was a touching that was contrary to law.” Fascinating logic here! How can the jury decide there was any act “contrary to law” with A.S. when there was no evidence or testimony presented in court from which to make that inference? If there is no evidence at all to indicate any crime has taken place with this young lady, nothing can be inferred from that except – no crime has taken place. There was not even any evidence or testimony that could be construed into a crime with her. No crime must be the only logical and legal conclusion, no matter how intensely a particular judge wants at least one jury trial on his record before the next election; no matter on what scoreboard the district attorney desperately wants an ‘X’ in the win column of the highest profile case he has ever tried; no matter what twisting and perverting of legal language is used to cover up their own perverse and venal motives. Sine qua non – you can’t have your cake unless there actually is a cake. But in my trial they made up all kinds of cake in their imaginations and even made the jury believe through their “hypnosis” that they were eating cake when in actuality there was none.
In the court recording of my trial, the voice of Judge Baca – the one who sentenced me to ten years in prison for “criminal sexual contact of a minor,” can be heard whispering to my attorney and the state’s attorneys during a bench conference with them, “There is no evidence to support that there was ever a touching of the breast.”
The prosecution’s entire case against me was predicated on their claim that I touched the breasts of the two minor ladies. Here, we have a statement by the presiding court judge himself, made during closing arguments at the very end of the trial, completely exonerating me. That statement is actually on the record, in the official court transcript, made by that same presiding judge in whom rests not only the legal power but the legal obligation to terminate trial proceedings, in what is called a Directed Verdict, when it is clear that no evidence is present to support the charges against the defendant. So by the judge’s own testimony – on the record – my attorney’s Motion for Directed Verdict should clearly have been granted, had the judge the slightest interest in justice and honesty.
In Heaven’s view of the matter, not only had every prosecuting attorney involved in my trial given sufficient evidence of their own guilt before the Eternal Judge, but the presiding trial judge himself had finally testified to his own guilt in, not a miscarriage of justice, but a factual abortion of it. “But they have done this in order that the word may be fulfilled that is written in their law, ‘They hated me without a cause.’” John 15:25 NAS That is, they found no cause in their own law for what they did to me, but simply extracted their charges out of a legal vacuum; and then proceeded to apply an existing law to my actions that no more fit the crime than if I had been charged with blowing up the Twin Towers. And the state supreme court approved his abortion of justice. What this has shown is how the legal system and its so-called expert witnesses of New Mexico are not about truth but about superstition, suspicion, self-guilt, prejudice, evil surmising and every other creepy, slippery corruption that is inherent in antichrist. Yes, it trumpets the end of the world as we have known it. I don’t expect them to change.
One might ask the question now, Why did you not take this to the U.S. Supreme Court? The answer is simple. I did not think I would live long enough to see the outcome and I do not trust any of the nation’s judges any longer. They don’t follow the law. They just gang up and do what they want, especially against one who is not playing their game. They would just find some twisted logic to keep me behind bars anyway. My time and money would be wasted. How can one expect the devil to correct himself? The courts in New Mexico ganged up, and I could not expect the federal courts to do any differently. They have a way of stringing a case on ad infinitum, draining the resources of the defendant until he is wasted. This protracted legal tactic of bankrupting defendants and plaintiffs is always exploited in any criminal or civil action when the government feels it has something to lose. It’s their method of making justice simply disappear in a fog of litigation, leaving some poor soul, who deserves fair treatment from his government, standing with empty pockets, a mountain of debt, and often living on the streets. No, I chose to pass on that scenario.
As to the doctrine of prohibiting questions “beyond the scope,” one example of such a question put to me was, “Did you fire all the ministers in the church so that you could take over the church?” I was utterly stunned by the stupidity of the question on the very face of it! If I was not already in charge of the church, then how would I have the power to fire anyone employed by the church? And if I were in charge, why would I want to fire everyone, including myself?
The blatant nature of the state attorney’s line of questioning was clearly designed to prejudice the jury by injecting falsehoods under a transparent cloak of innuendo, which had absolutely nothing whatever to do with the issue at trial. They know, as did the other Serpent – the one in the Garden – that lies spoken indirectly as inferences, will prejudice the mind of the hearer, even if the hearer knows the trick is being used. The jurors may well have discerned what the state attorney was doing, and his reasons for doing it, but the result, as any psychologist knows, is that their thoughts would still be weighted against me, simply by the state attorney asking a question that was totally impertinent but nonetheless prejudicial. I answered “No.” I had not done that. The state attorney then said, “Oh, okay.” But the damage was done and the jury was prejudiced by the prejudicial question.
How we as ministers, years before, actually conducted church business, was to meet periodically and discuss our organization; its structure, finance, any issues that needed addressing, etc. We understood that there are other denominations who do not pay their ministers. They volunteer their time as a service to the church. There were only four of us at the time and we felt why should we get paid for doing what a Christian should do naturally? We were not doing evangelism at the time, so paying the ministers seemed unnecessary. None of us, including myself, were to receive a salary, but rather we agreed to volunteer our time. We all voted and agreed to support ourselves by other means, and there was no dissent to this agreement. Subsequently, the entire tithe fund used to support ministers was divided equally four ways. The amount given to each of us was exactly the same and it functioned as our severance pay and unemployment, equivalent to approximately $1050 per month for one year. We also spent that year assisting the church in various ways that were needful which included two camp meetings.
I have never considered myself better than anyone else. Some judges and other politicians indulge a sense of superiority over others because of their authority and position, but this has never been a temptation for me. The state, however, employed this line of reasoning when questioning me, in an attempt to instill in the minds of the jurors that I was forcing people to conform to my will in both their beliefs and actions. But truthfully, I never forced or coerced anyone; we operated purely by agreement. In our church business meetings we all had a strong desire for perfect agreement on any project before we proceeded with it. Any dissent would halt the proceedings until all were satisfied. Our church board meetings were not a place of conflict but rather a gathering to enter in to mutual agreement of mind and heart in working out church matters. As pertaining to getting paid; did Jesus receive a paycheck – this man who had “nowhere to lay his head”? (Matt. 8:20)
Because of the refusal to dismiss my case (a dismissal for which there was abundant evidence) the state was allowed to create a “bad man” or “boogie man” image of me, but without permitting me the opportunity to share with the jury what the circumstances actually were. This tactic by the court was a complete surprise to us. In this the judge appeared to me to be uniquely complicit with the state’s attorneys. I felt that the judge was aiding and abetting the criminal behavior of the state by his duplicitous actions, and that the jury was intentionally prejudiced by the prosecution without my ever being permitted any attempt to mitigate or undo the prejudicial damage already done to the jury. The judge, whose agenda was clearly something other than justice, was permitting the state’s attorney to bring into record all manner of suspicions and rumors, unfounded in fact and lacking any legal pertinence to the issue at trial. While the state was thus allowed unbridled freedom to create a false concept of our church and its beliefs in the minds of the jurors, I was not permitted to address these falsehoods. I felt a certain kinship with Yeshua who had the same kind of trial before the High Priest and members of the Sanhedrin.
The state’s public defender seemed to me to be blindsided by what she considered illegal activities she never imagined possible in a court of law. And it seemed to both of us that the judge was consciously intent on perpetrating a basic unfairness in a thinly disguised miscarriage of justice. Repeatedly, time and again, my attorney’s valid motions were denied, if those motions seemed at all capable of exonerating me and resulting in a denial of my conviction, or proving that I was not guilty of the crime.
My defense attorney requested that the judge hold an in-camera interview with each alleged victim to hear their testimony and determine whether there was actual cause for my case to even proceed to trial. The judge refused. However, it should be noted that such evidentiary hearings are a common practice, and conducted to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the defendant for trial.
In-camera is a legal term simply meaning that a hearing is “In chambers; in private….had before the judge in his private chambers….” (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, 1990)
My trial was engineered to destroy my credibility by allowing the state to pose questions during my cross-examination that had nothing whatever to do with criminal sexual contact, but had everything to do with statecraft, smoke and mirrors, superstition and every other motive reminiscent of the Inquisition or the infamous Star Chamber, and as I mentioned, the Sanhedrin. At my first hearing I saw what they were doing. I turned to my attorney and said to her, “This is a railroad job isn’t it?” She just quietly nodded.
The great lie presented in my trial was not only over what I did, but what I am. My trial had all the markings of Satan where he takes one thing and completely turns it into something else. The Bible says that the beast “doth great wonders, so that he makes fire come down…” Rev. 13:13. He works miracles on the mind, causing people to see what they think is a great light (fire) from heaven, causing people to believe a lie, as he did in my trial. This “marvelous working of Satan” and the time of it was prophesied 130 years ago.
…when, under the influence of this threefold union [Roman Catholicism, apostate-Protestantism and spiritualism] our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government … then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. A Prophecy of Ellen G. White, 1885, 5T 451
It is written of this threefold union, “And the great city [USA Babylon] was divided into three parts [Roman Catholics, apostate Protestants and spiritualists], and the cities of the nations fell (collapsed morally, died spiritually); and great Babylon came into remembrance before God to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.” Rev. 16:19.
So this is the time in which we now reside. This spirit in the earth manifested against me in my trial is the same spirit that destroyed Jerusalem and then Rome, and it finally destroys the whole world.
Truly, now “we may know.”