Browse By

Sarah Palin Wasilla Church Kooky Masters Commission

I’ll start out by stating clearly that I do not think that Sarah Palin’s home church in Wasilla, the Assemblies of God, should disqualify her for the Vice Presidency, no matter how kooky it is. The Constitution states that there shall be no religious test for public office, and I think that’s a good standard for electoral politics. The individual character of Sarah Palin, not her membership in a weird religious sect, ought to be what makes up our minds.

wasilla assemblies of god masters commission kooky video sarah palinSarah Palin wants Creationism to be taught in public schools, and that’s a reasonable topic upon which to make our decisions about whether to vote for her or not, because it’s a matter of public policy. What Sarah Palin’s personal religious beliefs are about evolution should not be a factor.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin and John McCain have introduced Palin’s religion as something they think is relevant. So, in that respect, the bizarre goings on in the Assemblies of God church in Wasilla are worthy of note.

Starting a week from now, Sarah Palin’s home church in Wasilla will be holding a Masters Commission in which people are supposed to be given the gift of prophecy. The church has already developed some prophecies that reflect upon Sarah Palin’s position as Governor, and as a Vice Presidential candidate. The church’s leaders are proclaiming their belief that Wasilla is the key to God’s plans for Alaska, the United States, and the entire world. They say that God is “invading” Alaska.

Do they think that Sarah Palin has been chosen by God to become Vice President… or President? A video podcast shows you some of the church’s own video footage on this Masters Commission

42 thoughts on “Sarah Palin Wasilla Church Kooky Masters Commission”

  1. jeff says:

    i read an article that makes the case that Palin is lying about her baby. It insists that her oldest daughter had the birth. you should check it out

  2. J. Clifford says:

    Until there’s some concrete proof about that sort of thing, I’ll treat it as in the same category as the wacky accusations of Loren and Celeste Davis against Barack Obama. There’s enough real, on the record, kooky stuff about Sarah Palin. We don’t need to descend into weird conspiracy theories.

  3. rightlane says:

    If your are a fundamentalist, I know that’s carries with it a negative connotation these days, but it simply mean you believe what the bible says, then prophecy is considered one of God’s gifts provided to certian believers through the Holy Spirit. There are a whole lot of folks in the US that believe that very thing. Naturally, if you are a fundamentalist, you would believe in creationism and it follows you’d want children taught the truth as you believe it. If you didn’t, you’d what your kids taught a lie, which would be unethical.

    If you believe in evolution you too are a person of faith; however, you place your faith elsewhere. Considering, there is very little evidence supporting evolution, natural selection being a completely different topic for which there is considerable scientific evidence, then your implying Palin’s beliefs are out out of step with public policy and that is sufficient enough reason not vote for her, seems disingenuous. You will, if fact, vote against her based on your faith that she’s wrong as you have implied the current public policy is correct. They had a policy of burning witches at the stake in Salem, but the policy was changed and such change is a legitimate political endeavor.

    By the way, the bible, and I paraphrase here, states that it is God whom places the worlds leaders in their respective seats of power for his purposes. Ergo, if the fundamentalist perspective proves in the end to be correct then God has invaded Alaska. We’ll just have to wait and see whom he purposes for the Presidency.

  4. EvilPoet says:

    Morality and science are two very different things.

    “Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift. Darwin’s grand idea of evolution by natural selection is relatively simple but often misunderstood.” -Evolution 101

  5. J. Clifford says:

    rightlane, evolution is not a belief. It is a mechanism of biological change that has been discovered through scientific investigation of the facts. Evidence for evolution was already so strong back in the 1800s that two scientists working independently on the subject arrived at the same conclusion.

    Your ideas on evolution are about 150 years out of date. Your fundamentalism is 2000 years out of date.

    Tell you what, rightlane. Instead of voting, please why don’t you just sit at home and see whom God purposes for the Presidency?

  6. Jim says:

    rightlane, Sarah Palin is running for Vice President of the United States. The Vice President of the United States takes an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution. The First Amendment to the Constitution mandates that government not be used in the service of religion. If Sarah Palin wants to do anything with the Vice Presidency in the service of her religion, she must betray her oath of office.

  7. Todd says:

    Just as a clarification… Sarah has not been a regular attender at Wasilla A/G since 2002. And it seems a little juvenile to be name calling.

  8. EvilPoet says:


    OT – sorta.


    “The 17-year-old daughter of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is pregnant, Palin said Monday in an announcement intended to knock down rumors by liberal bloggers that Palin faked her own pregnancy to cover up for her child.

    Bristol Palin, one of Alaska Gov. Palin’s five children with her husband, Todd, is about five months pregnant and is going to keep the child and marry the father, the Palins said in a statement released by the campaign of Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

    Bristol Palin made the decision on her own to keep the baby, McCain aides said. ‘We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us,’ the Palins’ statement said. ‘Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support,’ the Palins said.”

    *** UPDATE *** Here’s a statement the McCain camp released from Todd and Sarah Palin, which is identical to the quote in the Reuters story: “We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.”

    “Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

  9. Jim says:

    OT – completely. Who gives a crap? Leave Bristol Palin alone. She’s a 17 year old kid. Just leave her alone.

  10. J. Clifford says:

    Jim, let’s leave Bristol Palin alone, but let’s focus sharply on Sarah Palin’s support for prohibitions of comprehensive sex education. Sarah Palin supports abstinence-only sex education, which gives teenagers misinformation and leaves them ignorant about sex.

  11. EvilPoet says:

    As I understand it, they pulled Bristol out of school for several months because of infectious mononucleosis. If that’s true, the timeline says she had the mono when she got pregnant. Wow. What an irresponsible icky hypocritical tangled web they got going there.

    Now I’ll leave it alone.

  12. just john says:

    This whole thing is unraveling like a tv soap opera. We won’t even have to pick on Bristol … the media and the American people will take care of digging into all of the facts. And so far, they aren’t very pretty. VOTE!

  13. Karen says:

    This is a really stupid website

  14. J. Clifford says:

    Karen, can you explain precisely what is stupid? I don’t mean that you disagree with it in terms of your political opinion – but stupid. That would be helpful, if you can manage.

  15. A TRUE CHRISTIAN says:


  16. J. Clifford says:

    Oh. Okay. You’ve convinced me with your logical, polite argument, and your citation of the wonderful eight years America has enjoyed under “BRESIDENT BUSH”.

    Thanks for the input. I’ll be sure to let all the false Christians know what you’ve said so that they can be enlightened by the gift of your rare wisdom.

  17. EvilPoet says:

    ALLCAPS attempts to compensate for his limited rhetorical weaponry through the extravagant use of capitalized words – something netizens refer to as SHOUTING. Sure, a sprinkling of capitalized words can add some zip to a thrust, but they should be used sparingly. Even worse from a tactical point of view, too much shouting alerts other Warriors to the opponent’s verbal WEAKNESS and emotional EXCITABILITY.

  18. Dave says:

    To try to get back on track….

    “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to “bend” thier observations to fit with it.” H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK

    “With the failure of these many efforts science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.” Loren Eisely, Ph.D. (anthropology)

    “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” Prof. Louis Bounoure (Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of the Research at the Strasbourg National Centre of Scientific Research.

    “Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Talhmision (Atomic Energy Commission, USA)

    “A five million year -old piece of bone that was thought to be the collar bone of a human-like creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, according to an anthropologist at the university of California-Berkely. The discovery of the blunder may force a rethink of the theories about when the line of man’s ancestors separated from the apes. He puts the incident on the par with to other emberassing ‘faux pas’ by fossil hunters: “Hersperopthecus”, the fossil pig’s tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America and “Eoanthropus”or “Piltdown Man”, the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the “easrliest Englishman”….The problem with a lot of anthropolgists is they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.” Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, Universirty of California-Berkeley

    “To insist, even with the Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evoled in this in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.” Pierre-Paul Grasse (University of Paris and past President, French Acadamie des Sciences)

    “To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of sherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” Charles Darwin

    (Please note, not a fundalmentalist minister in the bunch)

    I have lots others…but before you start quoting from credited evolutionists, my point here was to show that many scientists have begun to question and outright deny evolution. It is not a given in the scientific community. It seems that a lively debate is starting to take place.

    If this is the case, why wouldn’t there be a place for creatioism? My only concern is who would teach it, and if they got ther facts straight.

  19. EvilPoet says:

    Did you compile that list of quotes yourself? If so, I’d like to read the quotes in context. Can you post the sources you used?

    My personal feelings about the whole issue aside for the moment, you want evolution and creationism taught side by side in public school. What about in church? If you teach both in school then you should be teaching both in church.

  20. Peregrin Wood says:

    Dave, that is the most misleading statement I could imagine. “Many scientists” by count, have always questioned the theory of evolution. It’s the job of scientists to question theories. That’s how science works.

    Do many scientists assert that the evidence for biological evolution through natural selection is weak? No, Dave, no. Less than one percent of all scientists would say such a ridiculous thing. The evidence for natural, non-supernatural, evolution of living things on earth was strong back in the 1800s, and it has only become stronger since, year after year after year.

    There ARE NO FACTS to get straight when it comes to Creationism. No facts. Just religious belief. In the USA, we don’t mix church and state, Dave.

  21. Dave says:

    Peregrin Wood,

    Before I reaspond, could you let me know what source you used the one peroert figure. It would be helpful.

    Let’s save the “whole separation of Church and State Thing” for another topic. Got too many irons in the fire as it is.

    Evil Poet,

    I’ll have the sources for you later today, along with some more if you like.

    Although I haven’t attended a chruch in many years, I don’t remember any classes on Creationism ever being taught.

  22. EvilPoet says:

    Dave – Thanks for taking the time – let’s start with the ones we have so far and go from there. Re: teaching creationism. I assume they still teach kids about the Book of Genesis in Sunday school?

  23. Dave says:


    H.S. Lipson-“A physicist looks at evolution”. “Physics Bullitin”, vol31, 1908, p.138

    Loren Eiseley-“The secret of life” in “The Immense Journey”, Random House, New York,1957,p199

    Louis Bounoure-as quoted in “The Advocate”, Thursday 8 March 1984,p.17

    Dr. T.N Tahmisian-as quoted by N.J. Mithchell, “Evolution and the Empoeror’s New Clothes, Roydon publications, UK,1983

    Dr. Tim White as quoted by Ian Anderson, “Hominiod collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib”, in “New Scientist” 28 april 1983, p.199

    Pierre_Paul Grasse’-Evolutions of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p.107

    Charles Darwin-“The Origin of Species”, J.M. Dent&Sons Ltd, London 1971,p.167

    I have several hundred more, but quite frankly I’m a horrible typist, so if you would like to see more, please look them up yourself.

    Good point about the teaching of Genisis in Sunday School. By the time I went to a chruch I was long past the Sunday School age, so I never had the experience.

    I’m sure you would agree however, a chruch is a private instituation. They have the right to teach creationism if they want without making mention of evolution. I don’t believe the same could be said for a public institution. You can not teach creationism without teaching evolution. And, you can not teach evolution without teaching creationism. It’s a Public School. And as I’m sure you are aware, there are lots of different opinions out there.( Hmmm..maybe that’s why they call it “the public.”)

    My solution is simple. Don’t teach either. There are lots of science courses available that don’t deal with evolution or creationism, and there are plenty of places outside of school to obtain knowledge on both.

  24. Jim says:

    I have a theory that opposes the theory of gravity. You can’t teach gravity in public schools without teaching my theory too.

    I have a theory that opposes the existence of mathematics. You can’t teach mathematics in public schools without teaching my theory too.

    I have a theory that stands in opposition to the existence of the letters after “m” and before “t.” You can’t teach reading in public schools without teaching my theory too.

    The flying spaghetti monster cult has its own theory of universal origins. You can’t teach evolution without teaching flying spaghetti monsterism.

    …unless the notion that you have to teach every theory out there, no matter how empirical unsupported, is bogus.

    If you believe that teaching of science, the system of theories developed with reference to empirical observation, should involve the teaching of the theory that is best supported empirically, then the teaching of evolution is unambiguously preferable.

  25. Dave says:

    They would sure have to be some darn good theories!

    Lots of people believe in Evolution. Lots of people believe in Creationism. You are the only person I know that does not believe in the existence of mathmatics.

    I get your point. Are you now saying that creationism should be taught along with evolution?
    It is also a theory, just like evolution.

  26. Jim says:

    Ah. Now it is good theories. See, creationism as a scientific theory is not a good theory. It is empirically unverifiable. So it should not be taught in the science classroom. Simple.

  27. Dave says:


    I studied Biology in College and learned all about evolution. One of the few classes where I actually got an A. Yes I’ve studied it, and at one time in my life, believed it.

    I then got an understanding of God. Funny thing was, I wasn’t even looking. But, based on the facts and information presented to me, I believed.

    I know these things are foolishness to you. The Word of God tells me that already. You don’t have to remind me how stupid you think things are, I know that’s the way you think. To know and understand spiritual things requires spiritual discernment. Something a “Natural Man” lacks. Trust me, that is not an insult.

    You are trying to convince me to believe in a theory that is over 100 years old and has yet to be proven, comes under more scrutiny every day as scienftific research improves, and is starting to become a topic of debate within the scientific community itself.

    Or I could believe what the Creator of the Universe tells me. Not a tough choice for me.

    You can believe what you want to believe. That’s your choice. But why do you insist on forcing your beliefs on my kids?

    I’ll tell you what. As soon as they prove it, let’s introduce it into public schools. Until then, keep it in collge courses or over the internet. That way if you want to study it, it is by choice, not by sujection.

  28. J. Clifford says:

    Actually, Dave and Jim, Creationism is NOT a theory at all. It is less than a theory. It is a mere assertion without evidence, and without acceptance of a reasonable structure through which it can be proven.

    Creationism isn’t even considered by reasonable Christians. Why should it be considered by science? It doesn’t even bother to come to the door of science with a question that can be explored through reason. It’s an empty box, a door to nowhere.

    Creationism is fluffer nutter for the brain.

    Evolution is not a “belief”, Dave. It is a theory that has been thoroughly substantiated by generations of professionals looking for evidence and subjecting it to skeptical inquiry. It is a substantiated theory. That’s not a belief. It’s the highest level of proof of reality that can ever be attained.

    Evolution is observed. It’s at the point of being like the theory that one plus one equals two. Do you want your kids having to listen in math class to some stupid cult that says that one plus one equals green?

  29. Jim says:

    I’m not going to tell you you’re stupid. That’s not what I’m interested in, so you’ll have to get your victim-rush elsewhere.

    What I am interested in is that in science classes, they teach science. Science is the process of developing theory that is tested and cumulatively improved through a combination of logical thinking and testing through empirical observation. The theory of evolution is the most empirically supported scientific theory of biological change. That’s why it should be taught in the science classroom. Creationism is NOT a scientific theory, and it is NOT empirically supported to any significant degree. That’s why it should NOT be taught in the science classroom.

    By your own statement in this past comment, you are not primarily interested in science or empirical thinking, but rather in “spiritual discernment.” Fine. Whatever. You’re welcome to it. I’m not going to stop you in doing that. It’s your right.

    But I’m not the one forcing “my beliefs” on your kids. Evolution is not “my belief.” It is the most empirically supported scientific theory of biological change. It is the best scientific theory out there, which makes it most fit for the scientific curriculum in our public schools.

    The moment that creationism becomes the most empirically supported scientific theory of biological change, I will support the teaching of creationism in the public schools whole-hog. At that moment, but not before. Creationism isn’t even close to that moment.

    On what basis have you decided that evolution has not been “proven”? On the basis that certain aspects of the theory of evolution are a matter of development and debate? Well, that’s science, which you should understand if you took undergraduate Biology. By the standard that aspects of science should only be taught when the entire field of that aspect of science has been completely and utterly settled, the following are some science or scientifically-related subjects that should not be taught in public schools:

    Earth Science

    If, on the other hand, you teach the scientific theory that best describes the empirical world, then all of these subjects go right back on the curriculum… including Evolutionary Biology. On a scientific basis of evaluation, evolution blows creationism out of the water.

  30. Dave says:

    Well Jim.. I almost thought you were a decent Guy until you had to add the “Victim-Rush” comment. I’m afraid I’ll just have to leave thinking you’re an asshole. Thanks for the brief discussion. I can go home to the wife to get insulted.

    See you at the Bema.

  31. EvilPoet says:

    Dave – In my opinion, politics and religion is a lot like drinking and driving – they don’t mix very well. When you’re willing to discuss the issue honestly let me know. In the meantime, your rhetoric betrays you:

  32. Jim says:


    Bath Enclosures Manufacturers Association? I’m not a pipefitter, hon, but I’m flattered you thought of me that way.

  33. Dave says:


    I’m so sorry I signed off the way I did. It was childish and imature. I sincerely hope you accept my apology.

    Except for the occasional pointed barb, (which I would encourage you to refrain from in the future) you present a well thought out school of thought. I don’t buy it, but it is well thought out.

    You’ve got a good sense of humor also. Keep that. It’s vital in getting though life.


    I went to the website you listed. I really have no idea what you are implying. Because I don’t believe in evolution, I’m being dishonest? Dishonest with whom?


    The Bema is the judgement seat of God. I’m sorry I mentioned it. It’s where all of us will go to stand before God and give an account of ourselves. I hope that when my time comes I will be judged good enough to enter into his Kigndom. My sincerest wish is that you will be also.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Bema seat, Jim.

  35. Dave says:

    Nice crutch.

  36. To A True Christian says:


    To Answer poster: “A TRUE CHRISTIAN”
    who stated below:



    Comment by A TRUE CHRISTIAN
    9/7/2008@5:27 pm

    Using ALL CAPS shows you how arrogant and
    “bully-like” this Christian poster is towards all the world … and to no doubt how Palin would also act as a Vice-President, or even worse worse President.

    The Christian Fundamentalist’s are simply a bunch of brain-washed “intolerant bullies” who have a very need to control those around them
    with their “cult-like” beliefs.

    The Christian Fundamentalist’s are the “American Taliban”, and just a dangerous as the Islamic Taliban in the final end!

  37. Tom says:

    For the record, because I’m always confused by it, what exactly is a Christian Fundamentalist? Is it some one who believes in Christ? Or someone who believes in the Bible? Is Obama a Christian Fundamentalist because he calls himself a Christian and has gone to a Christian Chruch on a regular basis for 20 years? Should we be afraid of him because he might have “cult like” beliefs?

  38. Hanabi says:


    I’d been really enjoying watching the eloquence and grace with which you have put forward your case, up until your comment on 9/8/2008 at 7:46 pm. While it might be a little off-topic, I thought that your stab at your wife came off as pretty sexist and nasty. I hope that when you rock up at Bema you aren’t too surprised if God turns out to be vengeful feminist. Or even just someone who is less than impressed by those who insult people by comparing them to their family members.


  39. Drew says:

    So, I am a Master’s Commission graduate. Not a Graduate of the MC in Alaska, but a MC somewhere else in the USA. I do not feel you should bring them into this, they did nothing to you. In fact, do you even have there position to use their video clip? Isnt that something called, ohhh COPYRIGHT LAWS?????

    Before you bash MC and call it a cult, look into it. Do you have nothing better to do? Wow.

  40. Jim says:

    Fair Use provisions for commentary. First Amendment. Clearly, we have looked into it.

  41. Hard G says:

    Has anyone ever done a study correlating poor grammar and usage skills with socio-political positions? It seems to me that online comments with the worst spelling and grammar, along with the sloppiest sentence construction, mostly slant toward the politically far right and toward the religiously delusional.

    That would be an interesting and worthy study, in my opinion.

  42. JackD says:

    Hard G-
    I haven’t studied it, but I’ve marveled at the phenomenon. Maybe the emotions of the positions get in the way of the coherence of the arguments. Or maybe there really is a general difference in education levels. It can be hard to remain coherent when we think we’re under personal attack. Maybe a lot of the arguments are in response to perceived attacks upon personal beliefs or values.

    Who knows. I do find it amusing sometimes, though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!