Garner Ted Armstrong's Myrmidon

Garner Ted Armstrong's Myrmidon Replies To Questions

The Complete Myrmidon Series

Chris Cumming: Myrmidon
The Myrmidon Responds
Guilt Trip

Immediately below you will find, first of all, an email from Steve, whose wife, Kathy, wrote the "Garner Ted Armstrong, PhD, On Child-Reading" article, to the esteemed PhD, Garner Ted Armstrong. The highly esteemed PhD does not have time out from chasing masseuses around while masturbating so he delegated the response to Steve to one of his myrmidon enablers, Chris Cumming. Mr. Cumming's ignorance is displayed directly after Steve's message. Kathy, Steve's wife, then responds to Cumming. Following that, is my response to Cumming. After that, anyone that wants to comment on Cumming's blithering idiocy, will follow.

From Steve to the highly esteemed Garner Ted Armstrong:

Just a comment on your comment about reading to kids: Actually, statistics show that kids make great strides by being read to. I learned how to read better by listening to the teacher pronounce words and put expression into the story (just as you did from Paul Harvey and many Spokesman Club members from you). It's best (I think) with kids to have the books in front of them while reading to them (or having them take turns reading) so they can see the words as well as hear them.

I don't think I would be too quick to quote the Bible about prophets. After all, it does say that we should avoid those who prophesy and it comes not to pass. Your Dad make quite a number of blunders I still have in print. I'll let you be the judge of yourself.

Sexual deviants and the like...... oooh, be careful here, Mr. Pot. Let's first get rid of our own "beams".

Myrmidon, Chris Cumming responds:

Thank you for your e-mail.

Regarding your comment about reading, Mr. Armstrong was not denying reading to all children as a bad thing. He was talking about 2nd graders specifically and was saying that the minds of 2nd graders often wander. This, of course, was a minor aside to his main point about reading books on sorcery and witchcraft to children.

I personally agree with your statement about children having the books in front of them while they listen to someone reading. I also like these new books with the wand where the children can pass the wand across the word and hear that word spoken. Very good idea.

Regarding your question about prophets: You made reference to this verse...

Deut 18:22 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. KJV

I have personally heard this argument used against both Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong many times, but it just does not wash.

A prophet is a man chosen by God for a specific mission with a specific prophecy about a specific happening, such as Jonah's mission to Nineveh. WHO EVER SAID THAT EITHER HERBERT OR GARNER TED WERE PROPHETS?????

Never happened. Some may have thought they were, but they never were. There mission is to spread the gospel and expound the Word of God, 1/3 of which is prophecy. They state the prophecy and they explain the prophecy and YES, they speculate about the prophecy, IN NO WAY ARE THEY PROPHETS.

We teach that prophecy is designed to make perfect sense to those with the Holy Spirit AS IT HAPPENS. We are not commanded to "decode" prophecy and declare every little detail of it. We still do not know what year, what month, what week, what day nor what hour Christ will return, but we DO know that He is returning.

Both the Bible and God's servants admonish us to WATCH. If these men are prophets, why do we need to watch? If Mr. Armstrong is a prophet, why does he list a number of things to watch for in the Middle East or Europe, such as he has done in many of his recent articles and "Word froms" posted at the web site? If he were a prophet, he would not give a list of possibilities, he would give us specific dates and times.

He has been correct on a number of things that he has "listed" or admonished us to look for in the past. He has also be incorrect regarding some of those listed things. Irrelevant really, because the point is to watch, not accurately predict or decode the prophecy. In Matthew 25, the 10 virgins are told to be ready. They were not given an hour. That prophetic parable is in Jesus' discourse about the end time and His return.

Regarding your statement about sexual sins (or any sins for that matter):

This is my favorite argument (when people attempt to expose the sins of others). How can a human, especially a firstfruit Christian with the Holy Spirit (which I assume you believe you are), think they can talk about the sins of others when they are sinners themselves!!! Please explain.

1) You are assuming sin. You did not see it?

2) You are denying the Salvation element of repentance, which is, by extension denying the power and plan of God. Repentance washes one thoroughly from sin by the blood of Jesus Christ. How could you possibly deny one repentance?

Repentance is before God and only God can know the heart of a man. Without repentance, you will not and cannot be in the Kingdom. Why would you deny it for another?

3) You are denying the Salvation element of forgiveness, which is, by extension denying the power and plan of God. If you cannot forgive your brother in the Body of Christ, then can you be in the Kingdom? Who is going to forgive you? Will Christ?

4) You are setting yourself into a position of condemning judge, when the Bible gives you no such authority or position. What happened to Korah in Numbers 16?

You, in your e-mail admonished Mr. Armstrong to "be careful". You might want to apply that advice to yourself.

Let us know if you have any questions.

Use my direct e-mail address: sunshiner@worldnet.att.net

Sincerely,

Chris Cumming, minister

Personal Correspondence

Kathy, Steve's wife responds to Cumming.

Dear Mr. Cumming:

You have been corresponding with my husband regarding the absurd "reading to children" comments on GTA's webpage. May I say a few words of my own?

First of all, I am no longer a Christian, (although I was indeed reared in, married in, and raised my own family in the Worldwide Church of God 1959 -1995), so the use of scriptures is meaningless to me. I reject the Bible completely as being anything other than the mythos of a people. Religion is big business and nothing more. It's been that way since the Sumerian Cities in Mesopotamia. The priests" (read: "ministers") have the people under their sway because ignorant/fearful people believe the priests have an "in" with the gods, or to put it in more modern parlance the "keys to the kingdom." Religion is big business, and apocalyptic religion is bigger business yet. People who are insecure, and frightened in a world they don't understand are very susceptible to it, as the practitioners of such religions well know.

Re: whether or not the Armstrongs claimed to be prophets, It's all semantics, my friend. Catch-phrases, such as "we're now in the gun-lap" "eight or nine short years to go", "in five or six short years from now", "last dying gasp of this wicked society," "God's apostle for the "end-time," etc. etc. ad infinitum, do have a certain prophetic ring to them. Both Garner Ted Armstrong and HWA have been more careful, at least since 1972, when their credibility was slightly damaged by the non-fulfillment of their predictions, to make it abundantly clear that they are not "prophets"-all the while continuing to "watch," or as a cynical person such as myself might put it, to prophesy.

If you are a sincere person, and I have no reason to doubt that you are, I suggest that you go to a university (a "worldly," accredited one, please) and take some basic history courses, beginning with the History of Western Civilization. I especially recommend this if you think you already know this history, based on what the Armstrongs taught you. The reason that "not many wise men now are called" is because educated people, generally, simply know better than to fall for the histrionics of the proclaimers of the end of the world. They've seen this sort of thing through the ages and they understand the motive behind it. (And yes, I do remember what the New Testament says about people who say what I've just said. I don't care, so don't quote it to me.)

Re: Garner Ted Armstrong's embarrassing exploits, my only argument today has to do with the concept of a God who will overlook anything Garner Ted Armstrong does, continuing to "use him," when he "repents" (over and over and over again, apparently) because of some special "calling." Let me state very plainly that I have no use for any "god" who would be so capricious and operate on such a double standard. As my long-suffering "unconverted" dad said so pithily over thirty-five years ago: "If Herbert W. Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong are God's men for the "end times" then the Almighty and I wouldn't have gotten along all that much, anyway." Amen.

I also noted that you pulled out that hoary old chestnut about Korah, Dathan and Abiram. That cautionary tale was the best thing that ever came to the attention of the Armstrongs. What worries me is the idea that people like yourself, true believers, if you will, believe that it would be good to live in a society where dissenters are swallowed up by the earth. Are you sure that you want to permit your leaders, especially one such as Garner Ted Armstrong, to have that much authority over you? What if his antics one day become too much to swallow, even for a true believer such as yourself? Will you expect the earth to open up and swallow you and your family alive, should you complain?

Kathleen

Editor, The Painful Truth, Responds to Myrmidon, Chris Cumming:

Mr. Cumming,

A reader of the Painful Truth sent me the message that her husband sent to you and your response to him.

I am now responding to you.

Chris Cumming WROTE:
Deut 18:22 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. A prophet is a man chosen by God for a specific mission with a specific prophecy about a specific happening, such as Jonah's mission to Nineveh. WHO EVER SAID THAT EITHER HERBERT OR GARNER TED WERE PROPHETS?????

REPLY:
Now I will not attempt to "make up" a definition of a prophet like you do. I will go to the dictionary. Here is the definition of a prophet from
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=prophet :

"prophœet (prft) n. 1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. 2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression. 3. A predictor; a soothsayer. 4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause."

Fulfilling just ONE of these definitions would make a person a prophet or a make-believe prophet.

Regarding definition #1
Herbert W. Armstrong said that he had things revealed to him from god. He was the only one that could interpret god's will out of the bible, thus he was the only one that could interpret prophecy out of the bible. They fit definition #1.

Regarding definition #2
Well in Herbert W. Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong's cases, I think we can safely say that they had profound IMMORAL insight. So, in this case they do not fit definition #2. They were not moral. They were the exact opposite: immoral.

Regarding definition #3

"soothœsayœer (sthsr) n. One who claims to be able to foretell events or predict the future; a seer.
Word History: The truth is not always soothing, but our verb soothe is related to soothsayer, the word for one who tells the truth, especially beforehand. The archaic adjective and noun sooth, true, truth, comes from the Old English adjective and noun with the same meanings. The Old English form derives from Germanic *santh-az, true, which comes from Indo-European *sont-, one of the participles from the Indo-European root -es-, to be: the truth is that which is. Old English also formed a verb from sth, namely sthian, to confirm to be true. This is the ancestor of soothe; its meaning changed from to assent to be true, say 'yes' to humor by assenting, placate. Doing the latter on occasion requires something less than the truth."

Have you ever heard of the Plain Truth magazine? Was this not the church that was the only TRUE church? When we asked someone when they came into the church, didn't we say: "When did you come into the TRUTH?" That is one thing that is so glaringly evil about this whole scam. They came purporting to have the truth when, in fact, all they had were lies. So, they fit definition #3, they purported to be "truthsayers" or soothsayers. They saw prophecies as nobody else saw them. They saw the truth that nobody else could see. And they were WRONG.

Regarding definition #4
I'm sure you will not say that they were/are not the chief spokesperson for a movement or cause. They were the ONLY god-approved spokespersons for god. Why would they set up their own special church if some other church was qualified to speak for the cause? God was supposed to have only ONE TRUE church. And so, they fit this definition.

This whole evil empire was built on Prophesy. They took the bible and interpreted the prophesies out of it. What a stupid cop-out and rationalization for you to make. The whole point of the verse is that people would CLAIM to be prophets but be false prophets if what they prophesied did not come to pass. These con-men, who used the bible to prophesy, were proven false. Their interpretations were wrong. They misled people. You are right that we were continually told how the bible was 1/3 prophesy. Well, who the hell was it that was telling us what those prophecies were that nobody else could understand? This was the ONLY church that had an inside track with god and it was all through God's chosen servants to whom god was revealing the prophecies and our whole job was to preach this warning of impending prophetic disaster to the world. According to you, since these false prophets did not prophesy outside of interpreting the bible, they could not be false if they interpreted the words of the bible incorrectly. That is just plain stupid, if not criminal.

Chris Cumming WROTE:
Never happened.

REPLY:
We can agree on that. That is because Herbert the pervert and pervert Junior were false prophets. They falsely took "god's word" and used it to scare the holy shit out of people. Turns out that NOTHING they interpreted out of the bible came to pass, unless by pure accident. I would say that the same judgment would apply to a self-proclaimed prophet (as defined above) who uses the bible to mislead people as would be applied to a person that didn't have a book to back his prophesy up. I would think that any god worth his godliness at all would be more pissed off at con-men misusing his "Word" than he would at some dummy that started predicting things without using the bible. They were speaking for god. They were interpreting for god. That should be very scary for them and for you excuse makers.

Chris Cumming WROTE:
Some may have thought they were, but they never were.

REPLY:
They were the ones that thought they were. Do you remember all the "new truth" that god would reveal to herbie? I do. Herbie had an inside track with god. You can tap dance around the technicality about what a prophet is but, if there is a god, these men and their enablers, such as yourself, are in deep shit because they and you, by association, have misused god's children.

Chris Cumming WROTE:
Regarding your comment about reading, Mr. Armstrong was not denying reading to all children as a bad thing. He was talking about 2nd graders specifically and was saying that the minds of 2nd graders often wander. This, of course, was a minor aside to his main point about reading books on sorcery and witchcraft to children.

REPLY:
Tell me, Mr. Answer Man: Which is worse: A child reading about Harry Potter or a child reading about a naked Garner Ted Armstrong chasing a masseuse around her office while masturbating like the highly esteemed PhD did while caught on video tape? I think that children would be harmed more by reading of the exploits of Garner " Hairy Short Chubby Tattooed" Armstrong than they would from reading about Harry Potter. I remember years back when that asshole Roderick Meredith said that nobody should watch the "Ghost Busters" movie. Just as stupid as that asshole Garner Ted Armstrong getting his panties all in a wad about what second graders had read to them. I guess Garner Ted Armstrong and you think it is better to read about how the murderous god of the old testament destroyed millions of people, including little second graders, in a worldwide flood. At least in the Harry Potter books, good overcomes evil. In the case of real life with the con-man Garner Ted and his incestuous father, evil overcame good. They have ruined thousands of lives with their evil and greed and lust for money, power and control.

I would like to get all the children, now adults, together who were raised by parents using Garner Ted Armstrong's child abuse booklet, I think the title was "The Plain Truth About Child Beating," and let him run a gauntlet of paddles that he supported so vehemently. God only knows the multitude of lives that were screwed up by this one book alone. Do you people have no shame or morality or ethics at all? Are you so deluded by your religion that you no longer can see right or wrong? Obviously, you are.

Chris Cumming WROTE:
This is my favorite argument (when people attempt to expose the sins of others). How can a human, especially a firstfruit Christian with the Holy Spirit (which I assume you believe you are), think they can talk about the sins of others when they are sinners themselves!!! Please explain.

REPLY:
Well, it definitely helps when corrupt ministers, such as yourself (I knew you were a "minister" before reading your "title" at the bottom or your message, judging by your cocky, superior, condescending attitude. You parasites are so obvious.), have helped a lot of us to wake up to the fact that your book that you worship with all your pea-brain, is a fraud. We are no longer tied to your evil book or your evil god. You can no longer use it to control us. We no longer fear evil people such as yourself. You can no longer hold life and death over our heads. We are free. And so, now we are free to look at the fruits of your church and your teaching and proclaim that they and you are corrupt. And, if this world ever does self-destruct, it is going to be because of religious people just like you, fighting one religion against another. This world would be a much better place to live if there were no religions at all.

Now, I hope that is explained for you.

Chris Cumming WROTE:
We still do not know what year, what month, what week, what day nor what hour Christ will return, but we DO know that He is returning.

REPLY:
What a joke. You can't even prove that this Christ was here to start with but you do KNOW that he will return. You are pathetic. You "believe" it. You do NOT "know" it.

Chris Cumming WROTE:
1) You are assuming sin. You did not see it?

REPLY:
If you are referring to Herbie, he admitted his sins against his daughter. He NEVER denied it. Dorothy, his daughter has never retracted her accusations. Even Garner Ted Armstrong accused him to his face; its in GTA's book. Even Herb's grandson admitted the incest in a newspaper article.

Chris Cumming WROTE:
How could you possibly deny one repentance?

REPLY:
Fine, have your Jesus excuse all the evil you want. I will still hold them guilty. They will have to repent to ME. They will have to repay what they stole from ME, in the name of god. Who is this Jesus character to go around forgiving people's sins against ME? They will have to restore to life those who are dead because of their teachings. They will have to restore to health those that followed their teachings and are sick to this day because of it. They will have to educate those that they denied an education. They will have to get jobs for all those that gave up good jobs because of their teachings. They will have to make whole all that they broke with their various doctrines such Divorce and Remarriage. They may have divine forgiveness but I would like you to explain to me how that excuses them from having a responsibility to try to FIX all the lives that they ruined. Is repentance a free pass to do whatever you want to people and then have no responsibility to make them whole again? I don't see that even in the archaic Old Testament. I can't imagine New Testament ministers saying that the blood of Christ makes them not responsible for what they have done. They may be forgiven by Jesus but they still have a physical responsibility, until they are dead and standing in judgment. Its no damn wonder that the Old Testament condemned these false ones to being stoned to death. Then at least they were no longer around continuing to leech off of and misuse people.

If you people had any sense of morality at all, you would commit suicide out of shame for all the harm that you did. You people are discredited. You have no credibility. You have no authority. You are useless parasites preying on weak people.

Chris Cumming WROTE:
4) You are setting yourself into a position of condemning judge, when the Bible gives you no such authority or position. What happened to Korah in Numbers 16?

REPLY:
Not worried about your fairy tale book or your fairy tale god. I am in a position to judge you and your ilk because I suffered at your hands. I think Garner Ted Armstrong and you and your fellow abusers have a lot more to worry about, if there is a god, than I do.

Be afraid, Cumming. Be very afraid.

Editor, The Painful Truth

This Cumming idiot is either deep in denial or is thoroughly steeped in Clintonesque legal semantics. I was amazed that this kind of doubletalk was still being used by Garner Ted Armstrong's organization!

He writes: " A prophet is a man chosen by God for a specific mission with a specific prophecy about a specific happening, such as Jonah's mission to Nineveh." So, right off the bat we're up to the old Armstrongian tricks: Define the criteria to prove yourself right. It's also worthwhile noting that all Jonah did was to try to run away, he didn't visit a whorehouse on the way to Nineveh!

Webster defines a prophet as 1) one who predicts, or 2) a spokesman, especially one inspired by God.

What Mr. Cummings is missing in his semantics is the fact that if one is truly inspired by God to prophesy or interpret, one will be correct. The fact is that the Armstrongs have no better average than the psychics often quoted in supermarket tabloids. At least the tabloid psychics properly describe their prophecies as "for entertainment only" as opposed to using their interpretations for the purpose of scaring people into obeying Old Testament laws such as tithing, which were done away! And these are the wonderful people who taught us that Simon Magus' sin was attempting to utilize the power of the Holy Spirit for the purpose of self-aggrandizement or personal financial gain!

Mr. Cumming also writes: "Both the Bible and God's servants admonish us to watch!"

Yep, they sure do! But, for the arbitrarily authoritarian Armstrongs, lay members had just better not draw their own conclusions, which of course makes the whole point of watching moot.

Finally, Mr. Cummings launches into the old Christian forgiveness argument which has been used since 1973 to whitewash the Armstrongs back into compliance with Timothy's qualifications for a bishop. Poor old Simon Magus was apparently born before his time.

Hey, nothing personal against Garner Ted Armstrong. I always liked him as a person. It's just that nothing he's ever done really gives him any credibility as a teacher or minister who has been truly chosen by God. Something about the fruits of the Holy Spirit being lacking in his personal life. Jesus had it and was apparently able to resist Mary Magdalene. Garner Ted Armstrong should have followed Marjoe Gortner's example and gone into Hollywood.

When I left the Worldwide Church of God, I discovered that "this world" has better ethics than "God's True Church". As an example, Ted Kennedy most certainly has gone to confession regarding Chappaquidick. However, the voters have such a well developed sense of ethics, and morality, that they consider him unfit to be President of the USA. Gary Hart---ditto. In past years, there have been numerous anecdotes regarding once upwardly mobile high powered executives, who during a lapse of human decency or common sense, publicly used an ethnic slur. Bam!!! Their careers were suddenly over. Apparently, only if your father, a knowledgeable marketing executive, plagiarizes someone else's fake religion, you can get away with such shenanigans, because your work is just so important.

As a student at Embarrassing College, I heard so many ridiculous statements made that were simply a parroting of the company line, and fake as all hell, that I developed a habit of confronting such statements by looking directly into the eyes of the speaker, and lisping at them: "How Thpirituelll!" That is exactly what I would do to Mr. Cummings if I heard him make remarks such as his rebuttal to Steve. Another appropriate saying of the day mocking Garner Ted Armstrong's statements during a student Forum prior to the accreditation committee's visit to campus "Remember, (point index finger in air) at Ambassador College, above all things, (smile a big toothy grin showing teeth) we're sincere!" It was fake back then, and it is still fake today.

The prophet Ezekiel from our favorite book of fables, was allegedly told by God to marry a prostitute to act out a testimony against the nation of Israel. There is every indication that he found this abhorrent, but obeyed his God, and did it. This did not turn into one of the Bible's well known bawdy stories ( I always found great similarity between the Bible and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales). Ezekiel, with a knowledge of what prostitutes are accustomed to, did not play on it to relieve the tension of doing God's work, by having his wife participate in threesomes, lesbian sex, or watching his wife screw huge Black men for his entertainment. If these thoughts had even occurred to him, he would immediately have realized that such acts would have seriously compromised God's work. Why? Because Ezekiel would then have become the show stealer. And, he would have won over the wrong kind of 'verts! God wanted converts, not perverts!

Anyone who can be Garner Ted Armstrong's point man has a great secular career waiting for him. My advice to Mr. Cummings would be to come clean, forget the scam, and find legitimate work at a Fortune 500 company. Don't be like some of the unfortunate ones who were instrumental in the Worldwide Church of God's past, who, upon leaving, figured that a scam is a scam is a scam, and ran afoul of the secular law, and now reside in prison! If you'd like to be of service to God, leave the Satanic cult behind, and start doing something to help your fellow man.

Bob E.

Click Here to also see JohnO's article where he shows that Herbert W. Armstrong DID INDEED say that he was a Prophet.

The Myrmidom returns:

Dear Kathy,

I received an e-mail from the Painful Truth editor.

Anyone reading his reply can easily see the bitterness he is expressing. His bitterness seems to come from a deep pain he experienced early on in the Body of Christ. I will assume that he was called, repented, was baptized and entered into the Salvation process.

I could spend a lot of time addressing each of his replies (and will if you need them), but I do not see what that would serve. I will give you one, to show you that his arguments are not very sound. Let us take a look at his first argument; the one attempting to counter my definition of a prophet.

He stated:

REPLY:
> Now I will not attempt to "make up" a definition of a prophet like you
> do. I will go to the dictionary.
> Here is the definition of a prophet:
> "prophœet (prft)
> n.
> 1. A person who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter
> through whom the will of a god is expressed.
> 2. A person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers
> of expression.
> 3. A predictor; a soothsayer.
> 4. The chief spokesperson of a movement or cause."
>
> Fulfilling just ONE of these definitions would make a person a prophet
> or a make-believe prophet.

My response would be:

1) He uses the dictionary to define prophet. This is a mistake. Prophets are a Godly concept. That is, God invented the idea and position and only He (His Word) can define it. Dictionaries can be used in some religious arguments, but not this one, especially based on those listed definitions. I would love to know the specific dictionary he used. I would challenge him to do so. I, frankly do not buy definition number 4. Strikes me as made up to fit Mr. Armstrong.

Back to the dictionary being used in this case: The position of prophet is a spiritual one. Man, by Biblical definition, cannot know spiritual things.

1 Cor 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
KJV

Therefore, man, editing a general dictionary is not going to have a very good concept of what a Biblical prophet is. The Bible, however, is clear.

2) The Biblical definition is best:

The prophets of the Bible are clearly identified. The Bible tells us what a prophet is:

Go to the Torrey's New Topical Textbook (a Topical Bible) and see how it lists what a prophet is. It gives a comprehensive list of who the prophets were.

Prophets are given specific instructions and specific prophecies for specific people:

Read any of the books of the prophets and you will see the specific instructions. Jonah is a good example:

Jonah 1:1-2
1 Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,
2 Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.
KJV

Note: Jonah is given specific instructions, a specific people (city) to speak to, and a specific message to give.

The prophets did not have churches, followers, did not seek members and generally did not cover huge expanses of prophecy. However, the New Testament church has been given a commission to proclaim the gospel to the whole world. Clearly that gospel includes what we call prophecy, but no one today is a prophet in the sense of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos or Joel. The whole scope of what the New Testament church does is different from what prophets did.

3) Here is the Webster's Unabridged Dictionary 1913 definition of prophet:

Prophet

Proph"et (?), n. [F. proph\'8ate, L. propheta, fr. Gr. , literally, one who speaks for another, especially, one who speaks for a god an interprets his will to man, fr. to say beforehand; for, before + to say or speak.
1. One who prophesies, or foretells events; a predicter; a foreteller.

2. One inspired or instructed by God to speak in his name, or announce future events, as, Moses, Elijah, etc.

3. An interpreter; a spokesman. [R.] Ex. vii. 1.

4. (Zo"l.) A mantis. School of the prophets (Anc. Jewish Hist.), a school or college in which young men were educated and trained for public teachers or members of the prophetic order. These students were called sons of the prophets.

Note: This one is somewhat different from the one from Painful Truth. I quoted mine specifically. What was his?

4) Study into Bible Dictionaries.

I have ready access to 4 Bible dictionaries in my PC Bible and each is quite lengthly. I read through all of them and encourage you to do the same. They are quite detailed and specific. You will see little reference to the New Testament, other than to Christ, Himself. You will see clearly that the profile of a prophet is NOT the same as the profile of a minister.

5) I have never heard either of the Armstrong refer to themselves as prophets. The argument I got from the editor was one of them discussing prophecy. There is a huge difference. I sit here 10-14 hours a day, answering Bible questions and I talk about prophecy, but I am FAR from a prophet. The Bible is 1/3 prophecy. How can a member or minister discuss the Bible and totally avoid prophecy? The gospel contains and deals with a lot of prophecy, but one proclaiming the gospel is not a prophet. Mr. Armstrong is the founder of the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association and NOT the Garner Ted Armstrong Prophet (or Prophecy) Association.

6) As you will see in a study of prophets, God dealt with them directly. Angels appeared to them. I do not see Mr. Armstrong going around talking about all the direct contact he has had with God or angels. I talk about prophecy as a minister, but I have never seen an angel appearance, heard the voice of God or even a burning bush. I have only the Word of God and His Holy Spirit.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

I want to go back to the editor of the Painful Truth. As I said, I am assuming he was a member of the Body of Christ at some point (if he was not, clearly 1 Cor 2:14 applies). I also assume that he repented, was baptized and received the Holy Spirit by the laying on of hands. If he did this, then he entered into the Salvation Process, the goal of which is the Kingdom of God. Now regardless of all his arguments about the pain he experienced, the betrayal, the lies, the smiting, the sins of others, the false ministers and even the false church organizations, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HIS SALVATION??

Salvation is one person, in the Salvation Process, working out his or her salvation in fear and trembling BEFORE GOD ONLY. No man or organization can take that from them. I personally refuse to allow any man or any organization to take my crown; my salvation. Ironically, it is prophesied that many will lose their salvation, because they become bitter and become smiters of others in the Salvation Process.

Matt 24:9-13
KJV
Note: Many shall be offended. Many shall betray one another. Many shall hate one another.

Matt 24:24
KJV
Note: If it were possible they shall deceive the very elect.

Matt 24:48-49
KJV
Note: Evil servants shall smite their fellowservants.

The church is not going to be a peaceful place in the end time. It will be (is) a place of persecution, bitterness, hate, smiting, betrayal and offence. But what does Matthew 24 say?

Matt 24:13
KJV

Now, and I know you know this, there are some who have changed and no longer (or never did) believe in God or His Word. There is nothing that can be said to them. What can one say? Possibly, "wait until you die; if you never wake up; you win. However, if you do wake up (in a resurrection), let us talk again."

There is no arguing with someone who does not believe in God. There is also no arguing with someone who is bitter and/or one who is full of hate. What would you do.

Despite all the clever arguments of those full of bitterness and hate or disbelief, there is truth. Seek truth.

Let us know if you have any questions.

Use my direct e-mail address: sunshiner@worldnet.att.net

Sincerely,
Chris Cumming, minister
Personal Correspondence

REPLY:

Dear Mr. Cummings:

Did you read my e-mail? The PT Editor was writing to you, and if you want to respond to his letter, it seems obvious to me that you should have answered it using the hyperlink which he inserted for your convenience.

I would be interested in your response to my e-mail. You did not address any of the points that I made. Can you answer them on the terms I stated? Since I do not accept the Bible as the "inspired word of God" quoting the Bible to me is not going to do it. That is the tautology St. Anselm invented/employed regarding the existence of God: "God must exist, since we are debating whether or not he does." If you can answer anything that I said in my e-mail, or anything the PT Editor said in his, for that matter, without pulling out proof-text scriptures or using doctrine ("if you were ever truly converted . . . ") I would be interested in hearing from you.

Your name sounds familiar. Did you ever attend the Worldwide Church of God in Seattle during the late sixties or early seventies?

Kathleen

Mr. Cumming:

For some strange reason you reply to Kathleen about my message to you. Not wanting to mimic your disorientation, I will reply directly to you instead of to the other writer.

Apparently your whole defense of the un-defendable is going to revolve around what you "think" is a technicality with how the word "prophet" is defined. Very Clintonesque. Does your god think the same way? Is he going to look at all the lives that you cockroaches have positively ruined with your false, failed, unsuccessful, deficient, weak, misleading, unacceptable interpretations of the, so called, prophecies in the bible and say to you, "Well boys, you got me on a technicality here. To hell with all those lives you have screwed up irretrievably with your little 'mistaken interpretations of prophesies.' Doesn't matter to me that you used my Word to mislead people, gain a following, ruin their lives, and make a lot of money. Come on up here and sit with me on my throne and all those bitter people that you, my beloved servants, caused to be bitter because of your un-Christian behavior, can roast in Hell."

Is your god the lawgiving god of the Old Testament or the one in the New Testament that looks on the heart and spirit? Do you just flip back and forth and pick and choose as the situation presents itself? Herbert and Garner Ted, if not technically prophets, and I do not give you that point, certainly preached in the "spirit" of prophets. They used those prophecies that were "hidden from the rest of the world" to build their empire. It was the foundation of the church.

YOU WROTE:
I would love to know the specific dictionary he used. I would challenge him to do so.

REPLY:
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=prophet

YOU WROTE:
Strikes me as made up to fit Mr. Armstrong.

REPLY:
Thank you for your admission that it "fit Mr. Armstrong." Strikes me as though Armstrong made himself fit the definition.

The American Heritage dictionary says the same thing in their definition #3. I don't have to make anything up:

prophœet (prof'it)
Noun
1. One who speaks by divine inspiration.
2. A predictor or soothsayer.
3. The chief spokesman of a movement or cause.

YOU WROTE:
Prophets are given specific instructions and specific prophecies for specific people.

REPLY:
Once again, you get tied up in a technicality. Herbie and Teddy USED these prophecies to mislead people. Are you so dense that you cannot see that what they did is even WORSE than being a false prophet in the Old Testament? The Armstrongs purported to be the ONLY people that could properly interpret the true meaning of these prophecies out of the, so called, Holy Bible. They discredited all others. It was only to them that we could go for the Truth of these prophecies that would shortly come to pass.

YOU WROTE:
5) I have never heard either of the Armstrong refer to themselves as prophets.

REPLY:
Well, I don't imagine it will make much of a difference to you, as you desperately struggle to maintain your sanity in the face of facts to the contrary of what you want to believe, but I have a new article on my website that contradicts the "they never called themselves prophets" defense. See it at: hwa_prophet.htm

I suppose you can continue to maintain your "I never heard" defense but you also cannot prove that Jesus ever existed, so I guess you will have to stop believing that also.

I suppose you don't believe that Garner Teddy was ever in that video of him walking around naked, masturbating. How can you maintain any sense of ethics and morality while taking money from him? And you people think that someone that does not accept your religion cannot have morals. What a laugh. Your religion is a joke.

I have titled the page that I devoted to our correspondence "Garner Ted Armstrong's Myrmidon Replies To A Writer."

Just for your benefit, since I don't think you will find "myrmidon" in your bible dictionary, American Heritage defines it as: "myrmidon. A follower who carries out orders without question." When are you, who think you have all the answers, going to start asking some questions? Start questioning whether you can work for a man that is as corrupt as Garner Ted Armstrong. Can you work for a man that is responsible for so much evil in his life? You are more than an enabler. You are part of the problem.

YOU WROTE:
I sit here 10-14 hours a day, answering Bible questions

REPLY:
My sympathies. Do you think you could get an honest job?

YOU WROTE:
I want to go back to the editor of the Painful Truth. Blah, blah, blah............ WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH HIS SALVATION??

REPLY:
Don't you get it? I no longer care about your fairy tale book or your fairy tale god. You believe in this book with all your heart but there is absolutely no proof at all that it is from any god. The proof is just the opposite but I know that will not change what you believe. Your god is the Bible. You worship this book. Get that one thing very clear. Your god is a book. The book is flawed so your god is flawed. The god in your book is an evil god. I would not want to be associated with such a god. I do not want salvation from your god. All your bible quotations are useless. Don't waste your time.

YOU WROTE:
There is no arguing with someone who does not believe in God.

REPLY:
I have never said that there is no god. I simply say that there is no evidence of a god that cares about mankind.

I would like to challenge you to go to my "Acts of God" page and show me that there is a god that cares about mankind. acts_of_god.htm . Nobody has been able to do it yet.

I might also add: there is no arguing with someone that DOES believe in a loving, caring god in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.

Editor, PT

REPLY:

Dear Editor of PT
Thank you for the e-mail.
Thank you for expressing how you feel.
I do not see any need to answer you bitterness. You state your bitterness quite well.
I do wish to have a long discussion with you someday, but I want Jesus Christ to be there with us. See you then.
Sincerely,
Chris Cumming, minister

REPLY:

Dear Mr. Cumming, minister,

Fine. Run away with your hands over your eyes, saying "I don't want to think about it. Don't confuse me with the facts, I've made up my mind."

I thought you were the main excuse maker and answer man for your little cult. Did you run out of excuses and answers? All you can do is call me the all time favorite Christian condemnation: bitter. You never answered any of my questions or responded to my statements.

I, of course, will be publishing your shameful lack of ability to defend your beliefs and your ineffectiveness for all to see. Maybe you should get another job that you could handle? Or is it just too easy to be a "minister" and take advantage of people that cannot think for themselves? Is it just too easy to parrot your pat answers out of your fairy tale book rather than to also think for yourself?

You are no different than Herbie or Teddy. What are you going to do when Teddy dies and his little cult crumbles? Will you have learned enough by then to start your own money machine, taking advantage of uneducated people?

You are pathetic.

PT Editor

Kathy's response to Garner Ted's hypocritical and ignorant observations on Harry Potter were excellent. I wanted to be sure that someone in his "evangelistic association" was alerted to her comments. So I sent them this email:
Regarding your Harry Potter observations: perhaps you would find this reaction interesting:
http://www.hwarmstrong.com/ index.htm/gta_child_reading.htm

And may I say that, whether true or not, many biblical stories are NOT for young children to read, or to hear. Some of the most extreme, violent bloodshed one can imagine springs forth from the pages of the Old Testament, in red-splattered, cinematic imagery. The overwhelming atrocities committed by the Israelites during the invasion of Palestine are easily the equal, in terms of sheer immorality and inhumanity, with the Nazi Holocaust or the Stalinist purges. And I have not even mentioned the blatant sexuality described in the Bible.
I shall not condemn the stories themselves; but they are hardly fare for young, ultra-impressionable children. How many kids were frightened or disturbed while listening to such stories, along with prophetic horror stories and ministerial browbeating, because they were forced to sit through sermons even adults should not have had foisted upon them?
Fran

Garner Ted Armstrong's site (www.gtaea.org) has posted an article from a British journal purporting to show the historical sources of Harry Potter's magic. Now, this is hardly news to anyone, except for perhaps Garner Ted and other ignoramuses. Their headline to link to the article breathlessly proclaims that Harry Potter is not based in fiction! Duh! Don't those fools know that magical practice goes back to our earliest history? I don't know what point they meant to make by publishing the article, but I found the last few lines particularly relevant, and so I sent the Garner Ted Armstrong folks this:

From the British article you published on the site:

The modern counterpart of wizards are those who "claim special knowledge that other people don't have", said Dr Piers Vitebsky, an anthropologist at Cambridge University.

Modern wizards "could be economic gurus, high-technology scientists, maybe politicians, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, anybody who claims some realm of special knowledge.

Folks like Garner Ted claim to have special knowledge...so do you consider him to be a modern-day wizard?

Fran

I've been continuing to monitor the exchange between Chris Cumming, Steve, Kathy, and the Editor. Basically, what all you guys are saying is that the fact that Herbert W. Armstrong and Garner Ted Armstrong have been consistently wrong about what the future holds, proves they aren't getting their information from God, who is perfect and 100% right. So, they have no credibility, and there's no need to listen to them. Instead of refuting this fact, Chris is going off on some tangent over the definition of what constitutes a prophet.

Well, Chris, buddy, we're going to have to get a little graphic on you here. Nothing personal against your boss, if you get to read this. Let's slightly alter the subject matter to illustrate how flawed your logic is. Suppose somebody posts a picture of Garner Ted Armstrong on their website with all this nasty brown stuff rolling down his chin. And, they proclaim: "Garner Ted Armstrong eats fertilizer sandwiches!" Are you going to send them E-mail responding that technically they aren't sandwiches, because he rolls the stuff up in tortillas instead of using bread?

And, since we know that your boss isn't getting his information from God, what's all this stuff about the Editor having once been on the path to salvation, and now he's bitter and in danger of eternal death because he no longer recognizes Garner Ted Armstrong as a man of God? Personally, I believe that it is no accident that you are now aware of the Painful Truth website. I believe that you are receiving a new calling, and that soon your eyes will be opened just like the rest of ours. Remember, Chris, your mind is like a parachute. It only works if it's open!

Bob E

12/25/01

Dear Mr. Cumming,

I am a regular reader of the Painful Truth website. I recently read the correspondence between you, Kathy, and the PT Editor. All of you went to great lengths to determine the qualifications of a prophet. You, in particular, claimed (in one of your first emails) that a prophet can only be called of God. Well -what about a "false" prophet? Is he also called of God?

Don't think so.

I can put this whole thing to bed in just a few words. Let's forget the wordy definitions of everybody's favorite dictionary. All you need to remember is that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks -well, it doesn't have to call itself a duck. But it is still a duck.

The bottom line is that it matters not whether the Armstrongs (or anyone else) ever called them prophets. The simple fact is that they did make predictions. Dozens of predictions. What is a prophecy? A prediction. They therefore "prophesied" and used the Bible as their authority. Except for the reunification of Germany, every one of those prophesies failed. This makes them (both) false prophets. (If only one prophecy does not come to pass, the prophet is discredited.)

Again, it doesn't matter whether they claimed to be prophets, or admitted that they were prophets. Bill Clinton never admitted to being an asshole, but he's round and brown and smells like shit! And the Armstrongs (both of them) were prophets!

FALSE prophets.

Sweet dreams, Mr. Cummings.

John B

Dear John B,

Thanks for the e-mail and stating your beliefs and opinions.

I can, in no way equate a Bible prophet, as we see described and clearly defined in the Old Testament with a New Testament minister proclaiming the gospel.

Clearly the gospel contains stated prophecy, but the ministers stating that prophecy and even speculating about it does NOT make them a prophet.

If you know of ANY true modern day prophets, please let me know. If you specifically have a friendship with one, please ask him when Christ is returning. The Year, Month and Day would be fine. Old Testament prophets received specific prophecies from God to give to specific nations and specific individuals. I know of no one doing this today.

You sure are free to believe anything you wish. I have no agenda to convince you of anything.

Sincerely,

Chris Cumming, minister
Personal Correspondence

REPLY:

Mr. Cumming,

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I don't believe I said anything about "true" prophets. We're talking about false prophets, aren't we? When they start setting dates, that makes them prophets.

<< If you specifically have a friendship with one, please ask him when Christ is returning. The Year, Month and Day would be fine. >>

No, I don't know any prophets personally, but I believe you do. Ask your Mr. Garner Ted Armstrong if the date Jan. 7, 1972 rings any bells. Or the booklet 1975 In Prophecy.

Merry Christmas, my friend.

John B

1/5/02

Message sent to Chris Cumming, "Minister":

From the British article you published on the site:

"The modern counterpart of wizards are those who "claim special knowledge that other people don't have", said Dr Piers Vitebsky, an anthropologist at Cambridge University.

Modern wizards "could be economic gurus, high-technology scientists, maybe politicians, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, anybody who claims some realm of special knowledge."

Folks like Garner Ted claim to have special knowledge...so do you consider him to be a modern-day wizard?

Francis

REPLY from Chris Cumming, "Minister":

Dear Francis,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Your e-mail touches on a couple of issues.

1) Yes, I suppose that there could be different definitions of the word "wizard". We are using the one that is best implied by the Word of God.

In the International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, under "Wizard" we see:

See: Divination, Familiar spirit, Magic, Witch and Witchcraft.

In the Nelson's Bible Dictionary it says: See: Magic, Sorcery, Divination In the New Unger's Bible Dictionary it says: See: Magic, Spiritist

This alone shows us where we are going as far as a definition goes. We are talking about an individual who uses magic, divination and/or who contacts evil spirits for information.

We do not and will not see that "special knowledge" alone is an element for a wizard. It is not the best element for defining what a wizard is. Therefore, economic gurus, high-technology scientists, politicians, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists or anybody who claims some realm of special knowledge can be referred to as wizards. "Special knowledge", itself is open to definition. Special knowledge could merely be wisdom about, knowledge of or experience with a given subject. Clearly an economic specialist, a high-tech scientist or even a politician is going to have education, experience, knowledge and special talents that I clearly do not have. In that light, he has special knowledge. This alone will not qualify him or her as a wizard. I have never heard such as being referred to as wizards.

If on the other, these individuals were forthcoming with the fact that they use magic, divination and/or contact a being in the spiritual realm and that their knowledge of their specialty is derived from such elements, I would consider them a wizard and doing something that the Bible is against. I personally know of none that are.

2) When it comes to Mr. Armstrong and/or any in the ministry we can also discuss this issue or element of "special knowledge". I do not know of any minister living today who has special knowledge. Some have defined "special knowledge" to me as being:

a) burning bushes

b) appearing angels

c) appearance by Jesus Christ

d) voice of God

e) gifts of prophecy

f) visions, dreams and/or special enlightenment

There may be others I have forgotten.

I have never heard Mr. Armstrong state any of the above elements as something he has experienced. The only thing I have heard is from the Word of God...

(Blah, Blah, blah, etc...... Bible verses. Shortened out of boredom. Editor)

I do not think that one who has the Holy Spirit and the knowledge it imparts makes one a wizard. Afterall, we are talking about a process designed of God. That which God has against wizards, witches and the like is that they take Him out of the loop, so to speak. God wants us in reliance to Him and Him only. Very understandable for God to want that.

Now, if God chooses to allow one of His servants to be visited by an angel or to hear the voice of God, that is His business and again, one so experiencing one of those things would also not be a wizard since God was the author of it.

To conclude, we do not agree with the definition of Dr. Piers Vitebsky on what a wizard is.

Let us know if you have any questions.

Use my direct e-mail address: sunshiner@worldnet.att.net

Sincerely,

Chris Cumming, minister

REPLY FROM JOHN O. Who actually was there and can speak from experience and can't use Chris' excuse that "He never heard" or "He never saw." I'll bet Chris is a pretty young guy and can freely use this excuse truthfully. That does not mean that it IS the truth. It is merely tap-dancing around the truth. It is Clintonesque. Merely using a technicality to not tell the real truth:

Again Cumming has put his feet into the mess.

1) Herbie DID claim to have special knowledge from God. I heard him say so at one ministerial conference. He also claimed that God revealed all this truth to HIM, and not to anyone else. He also claimed he was the only true apostle living at this time, and God worked through him, and him alone.

2) Regarding visions, Herbie told a group of ministers that he had visions too. He recalled one vision when he and Loma were kneeling side by side with "Jesus" standing between them. Jesus, it appeared had one hand on Apostle Herbie's shoulder and the other on Loma's. "I have called you," spoke Jesus, "to give to this world something very special at these times."

So there were "visions," and preposterous claims.

Best 4 now. John.

Figuring there was just a little bit more fun to be had at our friend Mr. Cumming's expense, I sent him a brief E-mail message asking if it were OK to smoke or visit a massage parlor on the Day of Atonement. He sent me a 165KB response outlining all of the Holydays, and the master plan of God! I now believe him to be a very young man, who is happy to spend all his time answering even the most frivolous of questions, because he is probably being paid extremely well by Garner Ted Armstrong's contributors. This is certainly a lot different from the way in which the Ambassador College letter answering department was run! Ah well. Cheers!

Bob E.

REPLY:

Bob,

Maybe he gets paid per response. Gives him extra incentive to answer seemingly frivolous questions.

Editor

The title of this article on Garner Ted Armstrong's webpage just made me laugh out loud. I know it's the Jesus takes away our sins stuff, but the title just cracked me up, considering the author.

Here is the title: "How to Get Rid of Guilt"

Kathy

REPLY:

I don't think I've laughed so much in a year. About now, I need the comedy.

Do you know what's so insane about all this? These guys proceed to do about everything in the Book that's wrong, somehow justify it within their own pea brains, go on preaching, then gather a following, and make a fortune. Is this world nuts or not?

Thanx for the chuckle.

Best. John

Dear Mr. Cummings,

Recently you sent me an email on the subject of false prophets and the booklet 1975 In Prophecy. This would have been around December 24 or 25. I read the email, but before I had a chance to respond to it, I had a major hard disk failure and lost all my email correspondence. Perhaps God is not pleased that I am arguing with you?

If you still have a copy of that email, could you send it to me again, please? I would like to study it again and perhaps respond.

Thank you.

John B

REPLY:

Dear John B,

Thanks for the e-mail.

Sorry, but we do not keep sent e-mails nor the received e-mails more than about 3 or 4 days. We clear out the Sent E-mail files about every 3 to 4 days, as this file becomes quite huge with the regular flow of e-mail we receive.

More importantly, for the protection of those contacting this Web Site Office, we do not keep mailing lists, e-mail addresses (other than ICG church members) or copies of e-mails we receive or send.

I received an e-mail from you wife and we concluded that it would be best not to continue our communication, as it would serve no purpose for either of us. What with your relationship with the editor of the Painful Truth, I see no reason for us to continue communicating. This would, also, serve no purpose.

Sincerely,

Chris Cumming, minister

REPLY:

Mr Cummings,

Thanks for your response. Actually, you never heard from my wife, as she does not use the computer. Must have been someone else.

Anyway, what I remember from the last message you sent was that you believed 1975 In Prophecy was released in 1971. I just wanted to assure you that it was released at least 13 years before that. I remember seeing my mother reading it as far back as 1958 or perhaps earlier. I was still in grade school when I looked at those pictures by Basil Wolverton that scared the hell out of me. The point is that in the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s the Worldwide Church of God was in the business of making hard predictions about world events, and insisting they were biblical prophecies. Perhaps you were not around in those days, but I was and I remember them well. They kept me scared all the time. I lived in fear most of my life because of those prophecies. The prophecies did not come to pass, so the people making them (the Armstrongs and other ministers who wrote those booklets and articles) were false prophets.

Enough said.

John B

1/8/02

Dear Editor,

For those kind hearted souls who are willing to assume that Chris Cummings is young and doesn't know much about the Armstrong's grisly prophetic history and subsequent failure, I would like to mention that his name sounded very familiar to me, and I asked him if he was ever in the Seattle church during the sixties or early seventies. He said he was in the church there from [If my memory serves me correctly] 1971-1994. I did not know him personally, but remembered him. He was several years older than I was--I would guess at least seven or eight years older than I am, and maybe more than that. I was twenty when I left the Seattle area in 1976. He was around for at least fifteen years of Herbie and the last seven years of Garner Ted Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God peccadilloes. He is, as I said before, either a true believer who has allowed himself to be blinded by his belief in the Bible & the Armstrong's extravagant claims, or, he is "one of them." Personally, I think he's "in denial," but I have been accused of being a Pollyanna many times before. I don't know when he hooked up with Garner Ted Armstrong, but if it was circa 1994, then I'm willing to bet he was alarmed by the portent of the coming doctrinal changes which were obvious [at least to me] by that time, and sought out the nearest replica to the orginal that he could find at that time.

Just some thoughts.

Kathy

P.S. Someone's wife he referred to--the one where he and she mutually agreed that it was a waste of time to correspond further--was me. I told him that since he believed in the Bible and I didn't, we had no basis for further communication. It was just a waste of both of our time. He agreed.

REPLY:

Kathy,
Thanks for the info.
Chris really has a hard time keeping track of things. He says they don't keep email messages. I wonder why not? I keep a copy of everything. Well, almost. Not the junk mail. Or is he just lying? Or tap dancing?

Editor

NOTICE! UPDATE 5/2011

"Into Bed With Garner Ted Armstrong, THE MOVIE"

View Video HERE

See the pudgy, little, tattooed, adulterous creep in all is naked glory(?) cavorting around in the nude, wanking on his little pee-pee. How the mighty have fallen!

I take no pleasure in this. If the creep would just get out of the religion business, I wouldn't care what he did sexually as long as he wasn't hurting someone.

If you are interested in more information on Garner ~~Money~~ Ted:

Try to find Harry Crews' essay:
"Temple of the Airwaves: A Visit with Garner Ted Armstrong and The World Tomorrow."
Esquire (December 1976): 108-110, 166, 169-171, 174, 176.

If you have anything you would like to
submit to this site, or any comments,
email me at:

Email The Painful Truth

Copyright
The content of this site, including but not limited to the text and images herein and their arrangement, are copyright © 1997-2003 by The Painful Truth. All rights reserved.

Do not duplicate, copy or redistribute in any form without prior written consent.

Disclaimer