Talk:David Koresh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
David Koresh is within the scope of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do:
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Inconsistency

This page states (or at least strongly implies) that Koresh was killed by the fire during the raid - however, the Branch Davidian page states he was killed by a single shot to the head. Which is it? DarkIye (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


Another inconsistency is that it says Koresh slept with Lois Roden in 1983 who was then in her 60s...however her date of birth is 1905 meaning she would have been 78. Also there is no mention of this relationship on her page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TGManok (talk • contribs) 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kiri Jewell's Congressional testimony

I have searched long and hard to find some backing for the claim that Sherri Jewell or Kiri Jewell's grandmother alleged that Kiri fabricated the incident of sexual molestation and lied to the Congressional hearing. All that I have found is that subsequent to the Congressional hearing, various non-notable sources (eg bulletin boards) have made claims that at the time of the incident that Kiri Jewell was alleging, she was actually living away from Mount Carmel. Trawling through the Congressional hearing documentation, the grandmother did not appear and counter her testimony. Her mother was one of the unfortunate victims of the fire at Mount Carmel and so never countered the testimony either. The best that can be tracked down is a standard line - repeated via BBs, unsourced -- to the effect that "Kiri Jewell, the 14-year-old girl whose tear-jerking testimony convinced many that the raid was justified, was not even with the Branch Davidians at the time she alleges that David Koresh abused her. [my emphasis] She was living with her mother and grandmother in California." In fact, Kiri testified that the attack took place in a motel room, not at Mount Carmel. Her father sought and was awarded temporary custody of her in december 1991 on the basis of the molestation, and the case was heard in full 24-25 February 1992, Jewell v Jewell, by Judge Taylor at St. Joseph courts, Niles, Michigan. Full custody was awarded to the father, David Jewell. The judge further forbade any contact, either direct or indirect, with any member of the branch Davidians save her mother, with visitation strictly supervised. These are verifiable facts, and the congressional testimony is a matter of public record. Here's the policy:

  1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
  2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

I don't want an edit war, and I'm trying to be as reasonable as possible, even earlier leaving room for all concerned to maneouvre by tagging the grandmother comment {{fact}} and looking for a reference for it myself. But it seems that others wish to follow there own agenda here, even going so far as to imply I am somehow involved with a federal or government agency, "wearing an acronym" on my chest. I'm going to make the edit as per policy, removing the unsourced allegation. Furthermore, please bear in mind that while this article isn't a biography of a living person, the unreferenced statement is - and unless someone has a verifiable reference pointing out what Kiri's grandmother has said about her, then "controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." the statement must go until referenced.

I am going to ask for mediation or possibly WP:RfC on this matter, too. If I am unable to get my case across with the preceeding comment, then at the very least a third party really needs to be involved. Devious Viper 01:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

In the first instance, I have requested WP:3 Devious Viper 02:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm your "third opinion." I think that the statement should stay in WITH the fact tag on it until a suitable source is found. Removing the statement or the "fact" tag from here on out can be regarded as vandalism. (IMHO) If a source isn't found in a few months then the statement can be safely removed. Anyone have any objections to this? futurebird 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi futurebird. Thanks for your prompt attention. Obviously, as I have outlined above, I disagree that the comment should be in the article at all. However, I am loathe to escalate the disagreement, and also consider it bad wikiquette to request WP3 and then ignore it just because it isn't what I want to hear. I will concede that the statement may be included with fact tag, but feel that it should have a tighter time frame. If the other party is so sure that the statement is verifiable, then they should back up the claim a lot sooner than a few months from now. Devious Viper 02:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Considering that it is pretty libelous if not true-- I think you are right-- two weeks ought to be enough...futurebird
If a court awarded temporary custody based on the molestations, then we have a reliable source to say the claim isn't true. According to policy/Jimmy Wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons." [1]. I believe it is too serious and damaging a claim, especially considering the testimony has been recognised by a court, to leave it in with the fact tag. I feel the generic solution that futurebird suggested is inappropriate here when considering the details. I suggest: leave it out entirely until it can be sourced. RB972 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
He's not alive... futurebird 03:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I know. I meant Keri Jewell, whom the claim accused of lying in court to get attention. However that quote applies to all information regardless if they're living. I'm not sure why you responded with this as the claim is positive towards David Koresh. RB972 03:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have rarely seen such a rat's nest of despicable lies, even on wikipedia. The Congressional testimony was that Jewell had made contradictory comments regarding the issues involving the molestation claims since the custody issue years prior. Additonally, Jewell, who was living with her mother and grandmother during the time of the supposed molestation, was called a liar by both those very same people. I guess the confusion stems from the fact that earlier claims of molestation magically morphed into a supposed "rape" after the siege.Ernham 10:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

You are showing a blatant disregard for the facts of the case.
1.The testimony given at Congress was not materially different to that given in 1992.
2.The testimony given on the opening day of the congressional hearing was by Kiri, and consisted of the claim of molestation, NOT that she had made contradictory statements.
3.Kiri's grandmother did not testify to Congress.
4.There is NO evidence for your claim that she was called a liar by her family, other than conspiracy-theorist bulletin board chatter.
5.If you feel that there are "lies" in the article, you are at liberty to find counterclaims and insert them, providing they are from verifiable sources. I would have added the reference for the grandmother story myself, had such a reference existed.
There is still a lot more that can be added to this biography, and I would have done so had I not been involved in this crusade of yours; eg his insistence that the FBI provide fresh milk for the children; statements made by eye witnesses and surviving children about his kindness. Devious Viper 10:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No, neither of them testified at the hearings. Where, exactly, did i ever say they did? You are presenting a bogus strawman argument that flies in the face of testimony given during the congressional hearings, which revealed 1. she made multiple contradictory statements regarding these issues, 2. her mother believed she was liar, 3. Her grandmother believed she was liar. Her claim of "rape" is indeed different from her earlier claims related to the molestation/custody battle.Ernham 10:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ernham. Hope you are well today. Okay, you stated: "had you bothered to watch the hearings yourself, you would have known that Jewell was "outted" both by her mother and grandmother for fabricating the supposed rape for attention." This was in the discussion that you keep blanking from your user talk page for some reason, and which can be read now at my talk page. You keep referring to the Congressional hearing as investigating or refuting Kiri Jewell's testimony. IT DID NOT. In fact, had you taken time to read the reports and transcripts, you would have seen that the response from Congress was:

David Koresh has never been a hero to me. I think it's obvious that he broke laws. In my view, if he'd have surrendered, at some point, the greatest loss of life which did occur may well not have occurred. And I want to say to you, Kiri, personally, that I'm very sorry that you were not protected from David Koresh. I'm very sorry that you were not protected during this hearing, because it could have been arranged that you testify with no cameras going if we had known what your testimony would have been, but I can only say to you I'm very glad you weren't in that compound in February of 1993, and later when it burned down."
(Steven Harvey Schiff, member of the United States House of Representatives)

Devious Viper 11:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. I'm sure you can come up with even better stuff if you exam Chuck "scumbag" Schumer's various stomach-turning locutions on various issues related to this case. They have nothing to do with the facts in question, but that's nice nonetheless.Ernham 11:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, here's a good one. Explosives can't kill! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LUIaRvFAi4 He said it, it must be true. Huh? It's as valid and informative as your silly quote above. Anyone can assume/believe Jewell's story, but that is beside the FACTS. The facts were she completely changed her earlier allegations in the custody battle involving supposed molestation, and that both her mother and grandmother wrote her off as liar. Ernham 12:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Ernham, GENUINE victims of sexual violence often re-envision events which concern allegations. That you persist to eclipse Jewell's testimony, and suffering, with your indefensible apologism for David Koresh demonstrates you possess not the slightest damn knowledge of criminal psychology or gender theory, or sensitivity and respect. The man was a paedophile and a misogynist and survivors have testified to this. Why do you believe the meer speculative BS of dimwitted bloggers? Why do you believe David Koresh's sympathetic mythologisers should be entitled to weigh in on a Wikipedia entry?

[edit] Request for Comment:Kiri Jewell testimony

This is a dispute about whether the section referring to Kiri Jewell's testimony should contain the unsourced qualifying statement that she has been accused of lying to Congress 13:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
  • Kiri Jewell's testimony to congress should not be qualified with comments that her mother and/or grandmother have called her a liar unless these can be backed with verifiable references, particularly as she is still a living person and maintains her evidence was true -- Devious Viper 13:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • More strawmen. She hasn't been accused of lieing to Congress, merely facts added that cast doubts on her allegations: that she has repeatedly contradicted herself from the first claims of molestation charges in the custody battle(emtnioned in congress)and morphed her story into a "rape story"(complete with novel-like narrative), that she never pressed any charges against Koresh despite this alleged rape(not mentioned in congress, but nonetheless casts doubt), that her mother and grandmother thought she was lieing about it(both mentioned in congress).
As an aside, in the earlier custody battle/molestation case, there was never any molestation cited as grounds of action. Both parties(mother and father) agreed that one of the conditions of JCW was that she was not to have contact with any of the Branch Davidians or the Carmel Compound. It is presented differently--incorrect-- in text for this wiki. The judge did not do that, the parents were the sole arbiters.Ernham
Comments

Per Wikipedia policy, unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material must be immediately removed from biographies of living persons Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material, especially if potentially libelous. This is not a biography of Kiri Jewell (the living person in question), but that's no reason to allow unsourced potentially libelous statements to sit around. If and when a reliable source can be found to support the allegation, it can be reinserted at that point. PubliusFL 17:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not unsourced. It's the Congressional record. Can't much more "sourced" than that.Ernham 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How do you know that Ernham? Where, specifically, did you learn this? RB972 22:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
By watching the hearings themselves.There is no way it is not on the Congressional record as the line of questioning was directly from one of the Senators.Ernham 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any way to prove this? Did you watch the hearings in a video? RB972 23:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I understand what you're talking about. You didn't watch the hearings, as you stated earlier, you watched Waco:Rules of Engagement. Specifically this exchange:

  • Charles E. Schumer, US Congress, New York (D):

"Do you doubt the testimony of Kiri Jewell? Did you hear about that?"

  • Dick DeGuerin (attorney for David Koresh)

"Yes, I did."

  • Charles E. Schumer

"You doubt that?"

  • Dick DeGuerin

"Yes."

  • Charles E. Schumer

"Do you doubt that, Mr. Zimmerman?"

  • Jack Zimmerman, (attorney for Steve Schneider)

"Yes, sir. Do you know why?"

  • Charles E. Schumer

"Yeah, you can tell me why."

  • Jack Zimmerman

"We didn't learn of that the first time until she testified at this hearing. She, she's . . . that of kind of claim that has been made for some time. Her own mother didn't believe that."

  • Charles E. Schumer

"Right."

  • Jack Zimmerman

"There's been doubts about contradictory statements that she's made in the past. Now, it may be 100 percent true."

  • Charles E. Schumer

"You're wasting my time. My time is up. In my judgment, in many ways, these witnesses are trying to deny things that just about everybody else accepts as fact about David Koresh."

Forty seconds of the hearing, and never raised again. Zimmerman unwittingly backs up the fact that the allegation had been made before, then speaks on behalf of the dead mother; but Zimmerman is an attorney and realises the dangerous legal thin ice he's about to step on and states quite clearly: "Now, it may be 100% true"

And ten seconds earlier he said Jewell was making contradictory statements???

And you think an attorney defending his client by suggesting there is doubt - without any evidence - about an allegation levelled at him, is reliable source?? Well, let's run with this, see where it goes. There is a section full of reliably sourced and referenced evidence that Koresh was a paedophile and rapist. If you think that it serves NPOV to add, "While admitting that "it may be 100 percent true", Steve Schneider's attorney expressed doubt over the veracity of Jewell's allegations aginst Koresh", then go right on and do it. In fact, I'll do it for you. Happily. Devious Viper 10:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, though I've also seen that. I didn't recall if it had that part in it, however. The actual comment he made was that both the grandmother and mother had they believed she was lieing, not just mother. So wherever you got that from is partially wrong.Ernham 15:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
"dangerous thin ice?" Huh? No one is 100% sure if it ever happened or not. There is alsways the chance it did/did not, in the absence of empirical proof. Also, he wasn't a defense lawyer for Koresh. I like how you keep inventing facts that both convey your ignorance of Koresh and the Congressional hearings regarding Waco as well as make your POV blatantly obvious.Ernham 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ernham, an encyclopaedia requires subjectivity, not your complicity to conspiracy.

[edit] 12 year old mothers

It would help if the editors adding or reverting this change could QUOTE the underlying source exactly, so there's no question about what it says. Wjhonson 17:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Nema problema - I've added the precise source - the affidavit from Aguillera - into the Harvard ref, which already linked to the actual DoJ source document, and 66 and 99'd the controversial phrase. Devious Viper 18:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
From this wiki: "Koresh acknowledged on a videotape sent out of the compound during the standoff that he had fathered more than 12 children by several "wives", some of whom were as young as 12 or 13 when they became pregnant"
This is completely bogus. You are buested--AGAIN. You are asserting or using allegations OTHER people made while claiming that Koresh himself was the one that said them. Where is your source that says KORESH says he had 12-13 year old wives and/or had fathered children with 12-13 year olds. You don't have it. More of the same from you.Ernham 18:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, do be brief. You're just undermining your own credibility now. You just go on right ahead and edit the article how you want it to look, ok? "David Koresh was a Saint -- nay -- THE MESSIAH!" To demonize the potentially criminal actions of the FBI/ATF does NOT require you to BEATIFY Koresh. And vice versa. Get over it - he was a paedophile, a kiddy-fiddler. If he'd survived the siege he'd have been shanked in the big house before he even reached trial. We all know that, the evidence is overwhelming. Just report it as it is, your NPOV is no longer credible, as witnessed by these constant bouts of histrionics. "Just say No!" is a great anti-drug mantra, but as a debating tactic, it fails miserably. Devious Viper (talk · contribs) 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what passes for "overwhelming evidence" over there in Englad, good chap, but if the shoddy, constantly changing testimonies of one or two ex-cult members hardly passes as such over here. Even the Judiciary report said that even today there is no evidence upon which they could ever indict or convict Koresh on any charges related to child and/or sexual abuse. There are over half a dozen affidavits that attest no child abuse of any kind was occuring there(including child protective services and other government agencies), compared to half or less that claim there was any kind of abuseErnham 22:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, whatever. Make it up as you go along. You just ignore the evidence from, eg Bruce Perry. The world-reknowned medical and psychological team that put together... er, shoddy constantly changing testimony. Devious Viper (talk · contribs) 23:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Perry thinks corporal punishment is child abuse; however, most other people in the country do not. Btw, I think using multiple IPs is against the rules. Ernham 23:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ernham, seeing as the majority of developing countries are now criminalising the smacking of children, let alone belting the s--- out of them with a paddle, your "argument", or lack of, is both ridiculous and fallacious. Further, if you actually engage with gender studies, sociology and criminology, you will see paedophilia, and pseudo-paedophilia, is just a little bit more dynamic than your "understanding" of the issues and that whether or not enough evidence exists to convict the man in a court of law isn't the point.


You guys have never heard of the secret Jesuit Society or the Black Pope? You think this is fiction? It is through the Jesuit organization that the Church carries out her plans today. You think the Church will rule the world for over 1.7 millennia and then when her power is taken away she will just sit back and take it like a chump? NOOOOOOOO…. If you believe this, you are deluded. The Church is as powerful today as ever, the voice of God on earth to millions worldwide.

You don’t see that this was an irresistible opportunity to the Jesuits? They have spies in every branch of government and church organization, and regularly cause divisions and trouble among Protestants, their sworn enemy.

The Branch Davidians became especially vulnerable after the dispute over the leadership and ownership of Mount Carmel. Then in 1987 some fanatic joined, (probably a Jesuit spy, the name was Mark Brealt), contended for leadership in 1989, and was disfellowshipped. There was a divorce and custody battle which gave Brealt an opportunity to give his false testimony in court, making Koresh look like a pedophile and rapist, and the people to look like brainwashed fanatics. (watch “[Wako: The Big Lie]”)

Koresh already had too many enemies that he never asked for. Does anyone think they would not have had guns under his circumstance? The man saw how things where going and was bracing himself for a big attack, and probably living every day as though it where his last.

I can imagine important Jesuit leaders worldwide clamoring to hear the news, canceling appointments to organize things against the Branch Davidians, to take full advantage of this juicy opportunity. Many things where accomplished for the Pope here.

So you have these Catholics claiming to be ex-Davidians testifying of sexual abuse on the ranch. No doubt they where told by their Jesuit leaders they would shave years off their time in Purgatory for their faithful service to the Pope. It was a bad cover, because the girl who gave her false testimony wore make-up and the Davidian women had a very long tradition of wearing no make-up, (notice the women at the compound, including David’s wife). And the other young man who said David spanked his child in front of him for 30-40 minutes? That’s ridiculous. Ask that man about any subject of bible prophecy and I guarantee you he will not be able to tell you. Where are these false witnesses today? To understand the way the Jesuits have operated for the last 350 years, you have to check out Alberto Rivera’s http://www.chick.com/comicimages/0112/0112_allinone.jpg And here are videos by another man who was assassinated for exposing the Jesuits, 1 2 3

All this was said after all had died and where no longer able to defend themselves. All died but the Jesuit spies of course.

Of course those in control of the media will do whatever it takes to make these people look really bad, or else the public might sympathize with the Davidians and start to question the Legislation.

So who wins in this? What is the message? The message I see is “if you study your bible seriously you will join a cult and be killed and defamed in the public eye”. Therefore it’s safest to just trust the Priesthood and the Powers That Be, and just don’t ask questions and don’t get too serious about the bible. The Catholic Church smells like a rose and the Seventh-Day Adventist church looks like a cult, and the practice of studying the bible seriously seems like a dangerous thing. That’s what the Papacy has been teaching all through the dark ages, that it’s dangerous to let the common people study the bible, they will take it out of context and begin plucking out their eyes because of certain verses. They need to just trust their priests.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/waco/seals.htm <-- This is a pretty good bible study, not the work of a sex fiend. Serious bible students like this do not become so deranged. That’s what the Papacy would like you to think. The Bible and the Papacy have always been sworn enemies.

[edit] Let the blood of all her martyrs have a voice.

Matthew 23:34-35 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and [some] of them ye shall kill and crucify; and [some] of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute [them] from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Rev 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

Gen 4:10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.

Rev 6:10-11 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? 11 And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they [were], should be fulfilled.

The white robes are a vindication before the world that the martyrs where not “heretics”, but the true servants of God.

This verse states clearly that there will be another inquisition before the Second Coming of Christ. The Waco incident was just a foreshadow.

Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

The wounded beast is Rome; the image is the image of Rome, another Church / State alliance totally forsaking our rights and freedoms in the interest of national security. Oh, we’ve seen this so many times in history.

Rush4hire 16:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor issue

There is one paragraph in the article that should either be removed or changed to reflect the facts. It says:

The children were taught that Koresh's mission was to lead them into the final battle that would end the world and take them onto eternal glory. They used to chant: "We are soldiers in the army. We've got to fight. Some day we have to die. We have to hold up the blood-stained banner. We have to hold it up until we die."[38]

The "chant" they claim to have been using sounds rather macabre and death-idealizing, but it is actually a youth praise song still in use by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is a song of commitment using the metaphor of the Christian soldier, and has nothing to do with Branch Davidians or David Koresh, except perhaps that they/he apparently borrowed the song. The complete lyrics make the Christian context more obvious:
We Are Soldiers

Verse:
(Insert name or group here) was a soldier
He had his hand on the Gospel plow
One day he got old, he couldn't fight anymore
He said, "Stand up and fight anyhow."

Chorus:
We are soldiers in the army
We have to fight although we have to die
We have to hold up the blood-stained banner
We have to hold it up until we die

(Repeat, changing name each time)

It should be obvious from the complete lyrics and the fact that this song is sung in a denomination that rejected Koresh that this is not a reference to Koresh's mission. The army mentioned is the Christian army, the fighting is spiritual warfare, and the banner is the blood-stained banner of Christ. If they had sung "Onward, Christian Soldiers," would anyone have considered that a reference to Koresh's mission? Taking the complete lyrics and meaning into consideration, the song quote should be removed as unrelated. I think that the statement introducing the song quote is or appears to be based on the song itself, and therefore that it too should be removed, along with the footnote. --Cromwellt|talk 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)(login problems)

I agree. I shall remove it now Devious Viper 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of "Koresh" / Koresh's confusion

Yes, "Koresh" is the transliteration of Hebrew for the name we usually spell "Cyrus" in English, however as far as I can tell, it does NOT mean "death" or anything so related in either Greek or Hebrew/Aramaic, and I can't think what other languages would be relevant to check.

In fact, from looking at more of the transcribed conversation (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/waco/bookofrevel.html) it is clear that Koresh made up that meaning.

Not to mention that Christ is NOT the rider of the pale horse (Rev 6:7-8).

To avoid confusion, perhaps this should be noted in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.88.157.29 (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

How do you know he even said that? I want to hear a tape. Rush4hire 09:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name, Koresh or Howell

The article does not consistently use a last name, switching between Koresh and Howell, seemingly at random. It was a little confusing for me at first, so I was wondering if it would make more sense to just choose one (or at least use them more consistently, for example "Howell" for early life and "Koresh" for after he took that name).-Andrew c 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Most of these rumors where false

This garbage that "nearly everyone accepts as fact", was mostly fabricated, and based on nothing at all, except the false testimony of one Marc Breault, a vindictive, deluded man, who tried to take over the Mount Carmel organization in 1989, but was disfellowshipped. Just because the media says it's fact doesn't make it so.

David Koresh did not have seven wives and never raped anyone. He never had sex with 12 year old girls, and never claimed to be Jesus. Where is the proof of all these outrageous claims? Why is the public inclined to believe these things though the testimonies of the survivors is, in agreement, completely different? Why did the media exclude their testimony?

You need to check out these videos to see a totally different story: http://www.geocities.com/tlthe5th/waco.html My eyes where opened here. This is the first time I even heard the voice of David Koresh. He really wasn't such a bad guy.


During the Inquisition of the Papacy, from 1200 A.D. until the 1800s, an estimated 68 million "heretics" lost their lives in similar situations as this. They where not allowed to practice their religion in town, so they lived in camps in the mountains and valleys. Those who where of the Christian persuasion trained missionary students, memorized and copied the bible, and kept the original bible Sabbath, similar to the Branch Davidians and the Shepherd's Rod people. But they where considered heretics because they would not accept authority of the Pope. These where known as Waldensians, (denizens of the valleys), and Albadensians, (denizens of the mountains).

The Church saw them as a threat to her authority so had them wiped out. The Church had military control equal or higher than the Emperors and Kings. Armies where commissioned and promised full absolution of their sins if the destroyed the heretics, and they where seen as heroes to the people.

The media at the time represented these bible believing, God fearing peoples as cults, or witchcraft covens. It was a witch-hunt basically. The people where told all kinds of stories about them, like that their children had 4 rows of teeth. The public had no reason to doubt the claims, especially if church and state officials backed up the reports, and thus where relieved that the weird, brainwashed, fanatical, and dangerous "cultists" where being put to death.

The Davidians did not commit suicide, but where murdered just like in the days of the Inquisition. The Waldensians where at times closed into a cave and suffocated to death with smoke. The Maccabees fled to a cave to escape persecution and when discovered the Roman soldiers ordered them to come out. They refused because it was the Sabbath, so the Romans smoked them to death. They knew they would have been killed anyways.

The ATF leaders knew the Davidians had all retreated into the underground bunker, so deliberately started the fire in the bunker and, using the tank, crushed the stairway so they would not be able to escape. This can be plainly seen in that first video.


The Jesuits would love to kill off the entire Seventh Day Adventist church because it is the only influential Protestant denomination left who still holds the historical interpretation if Anti-Christ, (being the Papacy), where the rest of Protestantism has forsaken the teachings of their fathers and now teach the Futurism cooked up by Jesuit scholars during the Council of Trent in the 1600s. Since the council, the Jesuit Order has been very diligent to infiltrate the Protestant ranks with this false doctrine, as well as ecumenical ideals, and have been very successful.

The Branch Davidians simply make themselves vulnerable by going off on their own like that. I don't believe in all of the Davidian's methods or interpretations, but I do believe in freedom of religion, and that the Papal system is a threat to that freedom. Does anyone believe the Roman Church doesn't want to be in control again? They are very bitter because they are not officially, but can only work through undercover agencies.

"My son, heretofore you have been taught to act the dissembler: among Roman Catholics to be a Roman Catholic, and to spy even among your own brethren; to believe no man, to trust no man. Among the Reformers, to be a Reformer; among the Huguenots, to be a Huguenot; among the Calvinists, to be a Calvinist; among the Protestants, generally to be a Protestant; and obtaining their confidence to seek even to preach from their pulpits and to denounce with all the vehemence in your nature our Holy Religion and the Pope; and to descend so low as to become a Jew among the Jews, that you might be enabled to gather together all information for your Order as a faithful soldier of the Pope.
"You have been taught to insidiously plant the seeds of jealousy and hatred between communities, provinces and states that were at peace, and incite them to deeds of blood, involving them in war with each other, and to create revolutions and civil wars in countries that were independent and prosperous, cultivating the arts and sciences and enjoying the blessings of peace. To take sides with the combatants and to act secretly in concert with your brother Jesuit, who may be engaged on the other side, but openly opposed to that with which you might be connected; only that the Church might be the gainer in the end, in the conditions fixed in the treaties for peace and that the end justifies the means.
"You have been taught your duty as a spy, to gather all statistics, facts and information in your power from every source; to ingratiate yourself into the confidence of the family circle of Protestants and heretics of every class and character, as well as that of the merchant, the banker, the lawyer, among the schools and universities, in parliaments and legislatures, and in the judiciaries councils of state, and to "be all things to all men," for the Pope's sake, whose servants we are unto death."

(beginning of the Jesuit Oath)

Rush4hire 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton's Bodyguards

We have to keep in mind also that the 4 ATF agents who died just happened to be former body guards for Bill Clinton. What would you do if you where Bill and you needed these guys killed to cover up for something? You wouldn't take advantage of an opportunity like this? Well no one's perfect. We read in the bible about how King David had a man killed to cover up for his adultery in 2 Samuel ch 11. People in power do this kind of stuff regularly. They sacrifice the lives of a few for what they consider to be "the good of the many".

"it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." (John 11:50)

You can read on this page about alot of people asociated with Clinton who mysteriously died.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Waco4.jpg

Image:Waco4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WS:COTW

This is a note to inform all interested watchers of this article that Wikisource has chosen the Branch Davidians and Waco Siege as their Collaboration of the Week.

This means that we are spending this week collecting, copying and formatting Public Domain documents related to the church and its 1993 siege. This includes speeches by David Koresh, Federal documents in the aftermath of the siege, the charges against Lon Horiuchi and the surviving church members, and early church documents whose copyright have expired.

We would encourage you all to come help us, if you have any questions, feel free to leave a question on my talk page - either on Wikisource or Wikipedia!

I hope to see some of you there, helping us document the primary sources for future research and historical analysis!

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)