Friday, October 6, 2017

Constance: The Wannabe Prophetess to the Church of God



Through the decades the Church of God has been in existence (Armstrong era) there have been literally hundreds and hundreds of self-appointed prophets who have claimed to be the modern-day conduit of God's hidden prophetic knowledge. Almost all of them have been men.  Men usually without much education other than spending far too many hours immersed in Armstrongism. These men would take the words of HWA and others and create scenarios that would frighten God so much that he would delay the tribulation.

On occasion, there have been a few women who have claimed the status of being a prophetess.  They never gained much ground in the church because the men would immediately dismiss them with one simple verse:
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak;
Or, from the Message Bible:
1 Corinthians 14:34-36The Message (MSG)
34-36 Wives must not disrupt worship, talking when they should be listening, asking questions that could more appropriately be asked of their husbands at home. God’s Book of the law guides our manners and customs here. Wives have no license to use the time of worship for unwarranted speaking. Do you—both women and men—imagine that you’re a sacred oracle determining what’s right and wrong? Do you think everything revolves around you? 
Some would still persist and gain a few people who would listen to them, but they mostly fall upon deaf ears.

Once more, we have another prophetess who seeks to rise up and proclaim a message of doom and gloom to a church that is lacking in zeal.  This modern-day prophetess is none other than Constance, the sidekick to James Malm, the Official Church of God Pharisee.

Prophetess Constance has written an entry on James Malm Blog of Zealotry where she seeks to defend her prophetic status.  Her holiness writes who many in the COG today do not look towards women to be speaking.
In some circles, there is the theological belief that women must be silent and are not permitted to teach men ever. We will look at the two often quoted passages that some use to substantiate this teaching. How do we rightly divide these verses which make up the Word of God? And how to we reconcile them with so many other verses in the Bible that quite plainly say that women are to speak and teach others biblical truth and to encourage all the brethren, whether they are male or female?
These two places in the Bible seem to be saying that it is not permitted for women to teach because they then would be teaching men. It is from these verses that many mainstream Christian theologians derive their position that God forbids women from being teachers in the church. Even though some of the large corporate COG groups are now allowing women to write articles for woman’s magazines and blogs, there are a few elders and church members who still hold this position in the COG’s as well, among both men and women. The apostle Paul is the author of these two oft quoted passages that at first glance appear to be forbidding women from ever teaching; this is what he wrote:
1 Corinthians 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 2:13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 2:15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
Nothing new in the above comments, as this has been standard COG teaching.  However, like any good acolyte of James Malm, she has a better understanding than the blithering Laodiceans in the various COG's who are lacking in truth and zeal.

She writes:
If taken out of the context of which it is written it may appear that these verses are telling the women of the Ekklesia that they are not permitted to teach, period. Also that it is a shame for women to even speak in the church. In order to rightly divide the word of truth, we can ask some questions in regard to what this is actually saying and look to Scripture for the correct application of these verses. We should not take these verses out of the context of the whole message that Paul is trying to convey in these passages, but instead seek to understand exactly what he was referring to. We must put all Scriptures together if we want to know the truth about a particular subject and the Bible clearly tells us in other places that women are to “prophesy” in the church. It helps us to understand if we know that the definition for “prophesy” is another word for “to teach, refute, reprove, admonish, and comfort.” 
Apparently, the only people who take things out of context when quoting the Bible is everyone one except for the reigning prophets, prophetesses and church leaders.  That has been the standard practice of the church for eighty-some years.

That does not stop Constance though.  She is so sure of her prophetess status that she has to look for other scriptures that can support her desires. She twists the word prophecy to fit what she is doing on Zealot Malm's site where she has become his mouthpiece on several issues while his health sufferers.
Let’s begin by addressing the “to be in silence” part. If women are to be silent and are not permitted to speak or teach, how do we explain the numerous other passages of Scripture that seem to imply that women are exhorted to prophesy; which simply means to speak, to teach, reprove, admonish, proclaim, comfort and edify the church? In Joel, the prophet foretells that at a certain time in the future, that both men and women would be prophesying.
Joel 2:28 And it shall come to pass afterward, [latter days] that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:
Constance then goes on to say that when the Holy Spirit descended on those gathered at Pentecost that the men and women became prophets and prophetesses.
On the day of Pentecost in 31 AD when the Holy Spirit manifested itself in the form of cloven tongues of fire, Luke the author of Acts, says that all who were present were filled with the Holy Spirit and all began to speak with other tongues (foreign languages). We can assume that there were both men and women disciples present. This does not say, just the men, but all began to speak. Peter quoted this very verse from Joel 2 to explain what was happening which clearly says that in the last days the sons, the daughters, and handmaidens shall prophesy. 
Pharisee Malm has been using Constance to write "Chicken Soup for the Soul" style letters to his followers to make them feel all warm and fuzzy as the exclusive brethren of Malm's god after he has scared the crapola out of them with his end-time orgy of hellfire fury.
1 Corinthians 14:1 Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy. [prophēteuēte] 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort. 14:4 He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.
In verse 3 Paul states “he who prophesies speaketh” and goes on to define in what way this person is to speak; namely to edify, exhort and comfort.  To “speak” is the exact opposite of being silent. This verse does not have a clause excluding women from edifying the Ekklesia. Men and women who prophesy will speak. How and what will they speak? This verse tells us that to “prophesy” will be words spoken that edify, exhort, and comfort others. He repeats in verse 4 that “he that prophesieth edifieth the church”. That is to whom we direct our prophesying primarily, to our brothers and sisters in the Ekklesia. Paul exhorts all, which includes both men and women, to prophesy which means to edify, exhort, and comfort one another.
Constance has been searching for many years trying to find a place she could hang her hat and be recognized.  Going from one Sunday keeping church to another and then with a foray into Wicca, the prophetess found James Malm's zealotry to her liking.  After being spurned by other churches, she now can put her talents to use for Malm as a teacher who reproves, refutes, admonishes and comfort Malm's  aging flock. By interpreting it as she has below, she now has a place alongside Malm, whom she believes is a prophet.
“Prophesy” can also be translated as: teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon). When “prophesy” is used in 1st Corinthians 11 and 14 it is translated as “teaches, refutes, reproves, admonishes, or comforts”; it is not meaning here in this passage to foretell future events.
One of Malm's cultish teachings is that all women who are tied to his personality cult must have their heads covered when they are in church or in prayer, much like Yisrayl Hawkins commands all of his women to do.

We also note again that in 1st Corinthians 11:5 Paul teaches about head coverings in conjunction with a woman prophesying.
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

Constance then expounds more as to why she should have prophetess status by using Paul's words to justify her rantings.  Constance was meant to prophecy, Paul says so!

If the apostle Paul forbids women from prophesying (speaking, teaching and edifying) why would he say a woman must wear a head covering when she prays and prophesies? It does not make sense that Paul would say this if he had in other epistles told women they could not prophesy [speak or teach] as per what some teach 1st Timothy 2:11 forbids.
Therefore if a woman is commanded (as per Paul states in 1st Corinthians 11:5 and 1st Corinthians 14:1-4) to edify the church, that means she will have to “speak” words of edification in order to do so. But if she is on the other hand not permitted to speak or teach, how can she remain silent and edify at the same time? Does this make sense and is this possible? No, of course it does not make sense and needs further exploration, for the Bible does not contradict itself. The same apostle Paul who admonishes women to prophesy in 1st Corinthians 11:5 and in 1st Corinthians 14:1-4 meaning to edify the church, is the same apostle that wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1st Timothy 2:11-15.
Constance, for some hair brained reason, imagines herself
If women are never to teach men then why was Priscilla permitted to help in expounding “the way of God more perfectly” to Apollos who needed more instruction in how to teach others himself. To expound is the same as to “teach” and Priscilla in this instance was used by God to help teach a man. 
The Greek word for “expound” is ektithémi: (Strong’s #1620) and means to set forth, figuratively to declare. (Strong’s Concordance)
When Priscilla and her husband Aquila heard Apollos speak in the synagogue, they took him aside and showed him what he needed to be teaching about Jesus, the Messiah. Apollos must have been very teachable for after they instructed him, God was able to use him in an even more powerful way in publicly proclaiming the Gospel to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. There is no hint whatsoever by the writer of Acts that Priscilla had overstepped her bounds by not remaining silent; but rather Luke goes on to write of the fruit of her teaching Apollos along side of her husband. 
The Bible states emphatically without exception that both men and women are to prophesy, teach and preach God’s word and speak to the church words of edification, exhortation, comfort, and building others up by encouraging and strengthening them.
Constance is setting the terms of her reign as a prophetess in the church. Malm has been using her for a while now to write words of edification, exhortation, comfort, and slick words to make Malm's followers believe they are being strengthened.
The meaning of “prophesy” has the same meaning, whether it is referring to a man prophesying or to a woman prophesying. This kind of prophesying or teaching was predicted in Joel 2:28, and then quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17; that God would pour out His spirit upon all flesh, and that His sons and His daughters would prophesy.
God’s faithful know that the Bible does not contradict itself. So how do we explain the verses that state that women must be silent in the church when comparing them to other verses that exhort women to prophesy, to edify and encourage? We know that the Bible does not contradict itself, and God is not the author of confusion and that includes this subject of women teaching. The gifts of the Holy Spirit were given to both men and women for the edification of the body (with no gender qualifications).
So just how does Constance get around being able to teach men? All of the scriptures she quotes tells her that she is not teach men in worship situations, but what about elsewhere?  That elsewhere is how she gives herself permission to teach and prophecy OUTSIDE worship services.  Websites, letters, articles, etc. are her happy mediums by which to teach men.

Just as he addressed maintaining order when church members come together in 1st Corinthians 14, here, again, he instructs the brethren about proper authority roles in the church when it comes to formal church services. A woman is permitted to prophesy as per the other verses we looked at, but she is not to usurp authority over men as God has decreed in other places in the Bible when doing so. Paul is referring to the authority of a man over his wife that God has ordained when he goes on to talk about Adam and Eve and the order of things. A woman can prophesy or teach in other venues but she is not to speak or teach as an authoritative speaker in formal church services. God is telling us in these Scriptures that He has assigned the leadership role to men; to fathers and to husbands.
The Malmites have instituted the same forms of worship that Ysraeyl Hawkins group uses for their cult worship.  Men with lifted "holy" hands and women covering their heads with scarves.
In his instructions about how to conduct worship services, Paul tells the men how to pray (without anger or disputing, lifting up holy hands), and the women, how to adorn themselves (not being overly concerned about fine fancy clothing but being clothed with good works), and from this he moves to the topic of the prohibiting of women from teaching or usurping authority over a man.
The subject of authority is also mentioned in chapter 11 of 1st Corinthians which instructs the manner in which women are to pray and prophesy with head coverings; but then also goes on to explain that the head coverings represent the authority roles between men and women. In the following passages Paul goes into more detail about men and women roles which reiterates what he taught in 1st Timothy 2 and 1st Corinthians 14.
The command that women are not to teach in the two controversial passages cannot be taken as an absolute command that “no woman should ever teach a man” for if that were true, Paul would have rebuked Priscilla for having a part in instructing and teaching Apollos. The words “usurp authority over” provide us the key to understanding this passage. Women should not be permitted the role of authoritative leadership in the church and is supported by the verses that follow: “to ask their husbands” in 1st Corinthians 14 which is referencing back to Adam being formed first, and then Eve, who was created second and as a helpmate for Adam. After the first couple’s disobedience to God by taking of the forbidden fruit, Eve, who represents all the women that would come after her, was told that her husband was to be in authority over her. This is what is being referred to in verses 1st Timothy 2:11-15.
Constance continues to dance around and make excuses for why she needs to be considered a prophetess who can teach men.

Women are not to hold positions of authority or become pastors or give sermons in formal church services because God has decreed that it is the responsibility of men to exercise the leadership role, and women are not to take that responsibility away from them. We are not advocating, at all, the ordination of women or that women should be allowed to become pastors or church leaders or to get up front and speak or give sermons at formal worship services.
Paul, in all of these verses, is focusing on the fact that women are forbidden to take leadership roles in the Ekklesia over men which is very much in tune with the subject of the correct line of authority within the home and family system. Christ is the head of the man, and the man is the head of his wife, their children being subject to both their parents. It is a matter of church government within the family as designed by God.
“This issue is much misunderstood. It is all about  legitimate godly family structure and is not meant as a slight against women.  Women are not to preach in the church service, because it would be unseemly for a lady to be exercising authority over the husband that she vowed before God to obey.” (Women’s Role in the Church – James Malm)
God intends, most certainly, that women are to worship Him along with the males at formal assemblies. God desires that women sing hymns during services, and talk to others, fellowshipping before and after services; she just must not do so as one having the position of leadership in the congregation. This understanding is in complete agreement with Paul’s discussion in 1st Corinthians 11, a chapter that demonstrates that women did participate in prayer and prophecy in the early church. 
We can draw obvious conclusions then from all of these Scriptures; that women can certainly teach and declare the works of God by exercising their gift of prophecy. In Titus the older women are specifically commanded to teach the younger women and the children; Paul even describes what they are to teach. The older women are to teach the younger women, among other things, the proper order of headship in the home and how to love their husbands and their children. 

Can you imagine sitting there having Constance teach you how things should be!  That is just as horrific as listening to James Malm squeal about being zealous and worshipping at the feet of Moses.

Neither one of these two prophets of Moses need to be preaching at or teaching anyone. Bastardizing the Bible and church history to fit their own perverted message is not worthy of being heard.  No man in his right mind would let Constance teach him anything.  Especially a woman who dabbled in Wicca after being asked to leave several evangelical Christian churches.

Armstrongism has produced many crazy people over the decades and unfortunately, it continues to this day. While the church may certainly have many women who are actually qualified in teaching, Constance is not one of them  Let the buyer beware!












24 comments:

Helen Wheels said...

Let's just assume for a moment that her theologizing were, at least for the most part, correct, and that it is possible for a woman to be an oracle.

First, isn't there a contradiction between what she says about women not having positions of authority, and women having the role of an oracle?

If a god, by definition an authority, were to start telepathically beaming, what else but the most authoritative information possible, directly to the mind of a woman, would that not make her a conduit for that authority? Would that not yield the circumstance in which she, through no fault of her own, was thrust into a position of authority relative to every person, man or woman, to whom this god did not choose to telepathically beam his thoughts?

Second, continuing under the same initially stated assumption, why on earth should we think that she, in fact, fulfills the role of an oracle, and isn't just another windbag yanking the chains of the gullible?

As far as claims go, once again we have here one of the most extraordinary claims a person could make. Has she provided any demonstration of her oracular powers? Has she provided any evidence—extraordinary evidence—such that any reasonable person should conclude, not that it's merely possible, but that it is actually probable that she is an oracle? More probable than they hypothesis that she's another windbag lying for money? I'm skeptical.

Let's just assume now, hypothetically, that she actually is a bona fide oracle.

How does she know the identity of the being or beings who are feeding her information? How does she know she hasn't succumbed to the wiles lying spirits whose purposes are to deceive her, and those who listen to her? How does she know, from one minute to the next, that the source isn't constantly changing? How does she know that today she won't be channeling Yahweh on Monday, Resheph, his brother, on Tuesday, Beelzebul Wednesday, and Apollo Thursday?

No matter how you slice it, nobody should have confidence that someone who claims to be receiving "truth" telepathically via some anonymous source is legit without some extraordinarily good reasons to rule out all the other vastly more probable circumstances.

Anonymous said...

You are right about one thing. She and James are both windbags yanking the chains. Neither one of them speaks for God.

Byker Bob said...


This reminds me of a joke. A woman is driving her Camaro convertible along a two lane country blacktop road. She sees a man approaching in his Jeep, and as he passes, yells "Pig!". The man whips his head around and angrily yells "Bitch!" He fails to see the pig in the road now directly in front of him until it is too late, attempts to orchestrate a panic stop, but rolls the Jeep, and is instantly killed. The woman sighs, and says to herself, "Perhaps one day they will learn to listen to us!"

Seriously, I have often gained valuable perspective from the ladies in my life. But, there is nothing of any value to be gleaned from a demented prophetess of Armstrongism. The guys are all rejects. Why should the women be any different? It really doesn't matter whether they are permitted or forbidden to speak, since only Armstrongite nonsense "goes in here, goes round and round, and comes out here".

BB

Unknown said...

ANAGRAMS FOR CONSTANCE BELANGER...

(An Anagram is a word or phrase formed by rearranging the letters of another word or phrase).

Carnal Scent Be Gone

Recent Bacon Angel

Connectable Angers

True Bread said...

Dave Pack, Bob Tiel, and now this nutcase....

Helen Wheels said...

Besides, it's not as if she a disinterested person saying these things about some third party at arm's length. It's not as though this is the sort of lie that a person would never ever have a reason to tell. It's not like there were no benefit to her from saying this, or even a cost or injury could arise from making the claim. It's not like the only reason why someone would make this claim is if they were interested in truth and honesty.

On the contrary, there's plenty of room to be suspicious of the motives of anyone who makes such self-serving and self-aggrandizing claims about themselves. It's the sort of thing that one might lie about because it's going to benefit her financially. Perhaps she wants to have other people stroke her ego and look up to her as some extremely special person. This is the sort of lie that narcissists tell about themselves all the time.

And the fact that it's so far from a mundane claim as well makes the chances it's true literally infinitesimal. Anybody who accepts a claim like this without some extraordinarily good reasons is a gullible fool and deserves to be taken for a ride.

Arno said...

Have had the privilege to proof to myself satisfactorily that Paul might have been sincere in all his endeavors, but, to use a famous WWCOG saying: SINCERELY WRONG, BRETHEREN! 😁

No, I'm not even going to try to prove this point here. With some diligence everyone can arrive at the same conclusion if they are willing to step outside the box. Anyway, Dennis has submitted on numerous occasions that Paul, and for that matter, other so-called prophets and authors of the Bible, were way off the mark and anything but appointed or inspired by God.

Since I've joined this interesting discussion group, I marvell every time how some of us have arrived independently at the very same conclusions about Paul and the rest of the Bible authors. I find this to be an intriguing and fascinating subject indeed.

With all due respect: If God wants to convey a personal message or revelation to any person, He surely is able to deal directly with that person without a middleman.

Again, my rejection of the Bible /Bible-god and *its* modus operandi during the so-called Bible times, does not affect my sincere belief in the/a Primal First Source and Center of everything, but this awesome Being/Personage is everything but the puerile, childish, grim and vicious egocentric Bible-god. Bible-god is a construct of the ancient Jewish priesthood ...

BTW, this Malmish prophetess do have a much clearer view re. the roll of women then Paul ever had 😉

Anonymous said...

There is no need for a prophet or prophetess at this point in time. There are a multitude of prophecies in the gospels, Danial, Revelation etc predicting major world events.
This reminds me of that old Woody Allen movie were he acts as a English translator between two English speaking dignitaries.

Byker Bob said...

It'd really be an interesting exercise if someone could deliberately ignore, forget, or rule out everything relating to prophecy that came from Adventist or Armstrong sources, (they are very similar), start with a clean slate, and then attempt to determine first whether the book of Revelation really relates to our own contemporary times, what nations it might be describing, and what all of the symbolism means in terms of specific events which might affect specific nations.

One of the themes which seems to be prominent in Revelation involves climate change, and assorted phenomena which result directly from that. There is a breakdown or anomalous deviation from presumed laws of nature. War is also one of the themes, as well as the collapse or disruption of trade which often accompanies war, and then the increased sickness and disease that results from disruption of medical attention due to established systems being overwhelmed. Also portrayed is a trend of violence and evil, with people whose lifestyles are rooted in goodness becoming the primary victims of evil predators. It is an intensified confluence of bad conditions which would normally be measured or metered out in random doses, counter-balanced, but now occurring at a pace which violates or departs from normal probability. Whatever it is affects the known world at the time, but also has regional effects which significantly differ from one another. The worst occurrences initially affect people who should know better, but later intensify against those who would fight the solution. Ultimately, the reset button is pushed, and goodness triumphs.

There are similarities to what happened in Jerusalem in 70 AD, and also later in the Bar Kokhba Rebellion. But these both lacked the final resolution described in the latter passages of Revelation.

I remember the very dramatic planetarium scene of "Rebel Without a Cause" which I first saw on television in summer of 1967, during a few days visit to my grandparents. A science-based depiction of the end of the world concluded the planetarium sequence, just prior to the knife fight in the parking lot. It was an interesting and symbolic juxtaposition. At the time I saw this, I had already completed one year of Ambassador College, and was dismissive, imagining that I knew what was really going to happen.

Revelation seems to indicate that an increased population of humans ends up violating the long held preponderance of basic goodness inherent in all civilized societies, and through greed and selfish behavior, is responsible for causing the destruction of planet Earth. There are examples of civilizations which ceased to exist throughout history. Revelation is a departure, in that this propensity of mankind becomes unrestrained, and finally reaches global proportion. Ultimately, humanity is rescued by God, the presser of the reset button.

We once thought that we were on the event horizon for all of this. We thought we had a lot of answers, and were taught that the end time events all centered on us, and our church. Various people have adjusted to this in diverse ways. One thing we can know for certain. It did not happen on William Miller's timeline, or that of the sons and daughters of the Adventist movement, including Herbert Armstrong and his aspiring heirs. They lacked the keys and the understanding, which means that they did not have the conch.

BB

True Bread said...

BB writes:

It'd really be an interesting exercise if someone could deliberately ignore, forget, or rule out everything relating to prophecy that came from Adventist or Armstrong sources, (they are very similar), start with a clean slate, and then attempt to determine first whether the book of Revelation really relates to our own contemporary times, what nations it might be describing, and what all of the symbolism means in terms of specific events which might affect specific nations.

BB, did you not see my comments on Dennis' prophecy post...??

I have multiple studies on prophecy on my YT acct... Todd

Anonymous said...

Christ said 'the truth will set you free.' Self appointed prophets with their 'the end is this or next year' don't obviously believe this. They believe in lies rather than the truth. The people whose lives were ruined because they believed these lies, are swept under the carpet with a shrug and 'collateral damage' statement. It's all OK as long as it's some else's life that they've screwed up. After all, their heart was in the right place, and they were only trying to help.

Anonymous said...

The original roots of WCG and all the splinters trace back to Ellen G. White and her looney tunes rantings. It's no surprise that this addiction to prophetic interpretations continues today. It's a magnet for the cognitively challenged, which all of us were at one time, and many still are.

Allen C. Dexter

Byker Bob said...

No, Todd. Some posters, I've identified as skimworthy only. I see no substantive difference between yourself, James Malm, or Bob Thiel. If they posted here under their real names, rather than occasionally as "anonymous", I'd skim their stuff, too. You and I will most likely not be having any discussions.

BB

Byker Bob said...

Precisely, Allen. Not a heck of a lot of IQ behind it. The stuff they say is going to happen is far too massive for lowly humans to deal with, and all the ACOG teachers have already put us on notice to the effect that God might not protect us if we slip up on their legalism, or have the slightest twinge of an attitude problem towards them.

BB

True Bread said...

Dear Lord BB....

don't compare me to those whack jobs.....I was wondering when someone here would try to...back in the day while doing radio I got compared to Glenn Beck....barf...!!!


T

True Bread said...

PS BB:

You are the one that was asking about the prophecies in Revelation, hence my response...you sound like the kind of person that you come to this blog to attack and criticize...why do you compare me to anyone when you have no idea what I teach...isn't that a little intellectually dishonest and a touch hypocritical..??? And you are correct...I have never posted here "anonymously".

nck said...

Allen,

The COG s did explicitly part from Ellen G Whites teachings and role as a prophetess within the adventist movement. That s why they organised as the modern american based cog's as separate from the medieaval dissenters and other similar groups throughout history. Being in direct linear descent or not.

Nck

nck said...

Allen, BB is mote correct by pointing toward the adventist movement stirring urgency. Your assesment is incorrect. Just so you know, no personal criticism implied.

Nck

Byker Bob said...

Tell someone who cares. I just don't like people from Armstrongism who continue to "teach" (your choice of words). I'm quite sure that the reason people compared you with Glen Beck went over your head. In and of itself, the screen name you use here is enough to set off bad vibes. True Bread??? Get real! Aren't you familiar with passover, or communion? You presumptuously chose one of Jesus' screen names.

BB

Anonymous said...

yup, you point the finger, forgetting that four fingers do point back at you...for years you have put so much energy into accusing others of doing what you yourselves have also done...

your pontificating is no different from your counterparts on the opposite side of the aisle, as it were: you claim you are right, they claim they are right; then both sides go to sleep and rot in a grave as if they never existed...#hypocrites #irony

Anonymous said...

well i'll try to relate to you here....any mature public discussion is going to have sides....that means that many of the comments are going to be us against them....this being an armstrong dissident blog, the anti armstrong folk are the good guys and the people who have pro armstrong sentiment are the opposing team....since we're trying to rescue people from armstrongism, the pro armstrong people appear to be the bad guys and it's good etiquette to point the finger and trash the bad guys....#deprogram #accountability

if you wanna get to heaven you gotta raise a little hell....

RSK said...

Are you addressing BB?

Anonymous said...

6.49 AM
That's the common minister comeback to anyone who complains about church crazies or minister abuse. It's called blame the victim.

Byker Bob said...

If they were addressing me, RSK, I'd have to take it with a grain of salt. It's one thing to be a bit rusty on the math we all do in our heads. I'm just at a loss for words that someone could get the math wrong that they do on their fingers and toes. Pointing the finger at someone else and having FOUR fingers pointing back at self??? That, and not knowing how to do caps. Unbelievable.

BB