The self serving hypocritical men of Armstrongism have always sought to beat women down to be submissive baby producers or house cleaners. Make up was one way of stopping women from being attractive. It was OK for men to wear wigs and toupees, but a little paint on a woman's face was the ultimate sign of vanity.
Danile Cohran from the Hold Fast To All Things splinter cult has this to say about makeup.
Is MAKEUP really just a “minor” doctrine? Do we not realize that there are NO “minor” doctrines in the Church of God? Indeed ALL the doctrines placed into God’s Church are MAJOR, and ALL equally important, and are placed there for a reason!
Mr. Armstrong felt it was important enough to preach on it frequently when God was using him to put the Church back on track doctrinally in the early 1980’s. In the article posted below, Mr. Armstrong shows how Satan used this doctrine to get the Church OFF TRACK! So it must be more than just a “minor” or insignificant doctrine. And it’s evident that God Himself feels that it is important because He inspired His apostle to set the doctrine straight once and for all. Remember only God’s apostles have the AUTHORITY to change or place doctrine into God’s Church. And God BINDS that decision in heaven! THEN it is up to us as members of God’s Church to remain faithful to that doctrine, or not.
So a bunch of women wearing makeup got the church off track instead of the whoring, lying, money grubbing, power hungry church leaders? These spiritual deviates ran the church in the ground with excess and greed, but that was OK because they were God's anointed. Yet some paint on a woman's face was a grievous sin? What is wrong with this picture?????????????
Part of the problem that this "doctrine" is still in force today in many of the splinter cults is because the Church of God taught that Herbert had the authority to bind and and loose any doctrine on earth as in heaven. If he said it, God did it.
Christ teaches us through His Word, and Mr. Armstrong taught us through his writings and sermons, that only APOSTLES have the authority to bind and loosen doctrine within God's Church. More is covered on this subject elsewhere in this website.
...there IS NO EXCUSE! God Almighty placed this doctrine, ALL the doctrines into His Church through His apostles, and they are STILL BINDING TODAY!
Cohran quotes Herbert's silly logic:
Again look at HOW SIN BEGAN--with LUCIFER. God had created him perfect, and he was in all his ways, TILL he SINNED. HOW? His heart was lifted up IN VANITY because of his BEAUTY (Ezek. 28:15- 17). Being BEAUTIFUL or the desire for it led to VANITY. SELF- glorification! His mind went to his BEAUTY, in VANITY. Of course he would have denied having vanity just as mortals today.Because sin entered humans through Eve, sin entered the COG through its women with makeup on their faces! Talk about proof-texting! Talk about asinine stupidity!
Satan introduced SIN into humanity through a woman, mother EVE. She was MISLED, deceived. She didn't deliberately WILL to do wrong--to lead her husband into the first SIN! She was deceived, as our women have been today. Go back and read the beginning paragraphs of this article. It is precisely the way Satan has been getting to our women today.
Whaaaa? So there are no minor doctrines in the COG?!?!
ReplyDeleteHe sounds like he'd fit right in with the Pharisees of Christ's day of whom our Lord and Saviour corrected for their false accusations and rigid condemnation of innocent people (Mt 12:7). And wth does he mean by "all the doctrines placed into the COG"??? By whom??? Armstrong?!?! Ummm do they know he's dead & been dead for over 20 years?!?!
It's a wonder none of these Armstrong-followers have ever used a medium to get in contact with HWA to find out which "doctrines" are still applicable or not seeing that HWA himself was hot and cold changing his mind all the fcuking time! Talk about inconsistency?!?!
I deny that Jesus forbade women from wearing makeup.
ReplyDeleteIt is Daniel Cohran who forbids women from wearing makeup.
Daniel Cohran, take responsibility for your own actions and say, You forbid makeup. Do not hide behind the authority of the Bible or HWA.
I heard Roderick C. Meredith himself say that HWA banned makeup after he saw his daughter Beverly appear wearing too much makeup. He got really mad and her and then banned makeup.
Don't listen to HWA's article. That is the real reason he banned makeup.
He later allowed it. His second wife, Ramona Martin (nee Crittenden), wore makeup. HWA reimposed his makeup ban partly in the hope that it would cause her to divorce him. (That failed. HWA filed for divorce.)
He was also probably hoping to get more money from WCG members who no longer bought makeup. It was all about money.
I first encountered that article in Pabco's Home Page so I encountered that article fairly early in my encounter with Armstrongism. But they, HWA, Hoeh, say that the church is to grow in understanding and Meredith's LCG allowed. So I said they must have grown in understanding to allow makeup, so I ignored the fact that HWA banned makeup.
I ignored how this ban reveals that HWA despised women and wished to see them firmly under the control of men. I blinded myself to how this ban must have been terribly oppressive for women.
I am a man so, alas, it was easier for me to simply blind myself to what this vicious, women hating prohibition revealed about HWA's character and negative attitudes towards women.
Today, now that I have renounced Armstrongism, I find this makeup ban astoundingly disgusting and abhorrent. Any man who imposes this
ban is a women hater.
Daniel Cohran is a women hater.
Don't tell me he has a wife or daughters and this proves otherwise. Any man who truly cares for women would not impose this terrible burden on them.
OK, so because someone got drunk at a birthday party and killed someone, no one can celebrate birthdays. Because someone used make up to seduce someone, no one can wear make up. When will they ban raisin cakes since they were used in pagan worship (Hosea 3:1)? Mr. Flurry, does your ban on raisin cakes also include raisin toast? Cinnamon buns? How about plain old raisins. And since raisins come from grapes and grapes are used to make wine, can we drink wine any longer?
ReplyDeleteWhat occurs to me is that if you take this "doctrine" literally, and to its logical conclusion then paint of any kind becomes wrong, because it changes the appearance of anything to which it is applied, thus creating a lie. What happens when you paint a house, or a car? It no longer appears in the natural state, natural wood, or natural metals.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it becomes wrong to attempt to improve the appearance in any way of anything. That would make an idol of that thing.
This, of course, is nothing less than Armstrong worship. If Jesus Christ were to return, and Herbie was at his right hand, these people would be lining up to talk to Herbie, and probably ignoring Jesus.
If the designated head of the church has the keys of Peter, then we should be what all of the binding and loosing decisions throughout the centuries have led to: Catholic. Or, if this is something that just started with that great restorer, HWA, then everyone should have taken Joe Tkach seriously. But, they treat it as if HWA were the only one in the history of Christianity who has ever had the keys of Peter, and that everything the man ever said became permanent forever and ever.
BB
Its like the old "Stylistics" song, "Make Up to Break Up" ...
ReplyDeleteBreak up over make up, that's all we do...
First you love me then you hate me...
That's a game for fools...
Luv,
Joe Moeller
Cody, WY
My advice to any young lady who decides to sew some wild oats and leave these cults is to immediately get permanent makeup. It's actually tattoos, but rather than the types of defacing tattoos that make the girls look like horrible burn victims, the makeup tattoo permanently enhances your looks!
ReplyDeleteLater on, if your family and conscience mess up your sense of logic, and make you want to go back to the cult, you have makeup that they can't do anything about.
BB
I created a wrong impression with some of the wording in that last post. I certainly did not mean to imply that burn victims are horrible, I have nothing but compassion for them. My disgust for deliberate uglification through excessive tattoos overwhelmed my normal carefully executed communication skills. I apologize profusely.
ReplyDeleteBB
Dan Cohran is only a deacon who has taken on a full-time job crusading for HWA. The truth been known if HWA was alive he would be tossed out of the old WCG for having his own church. When did a deacon have their own church in the old WCG. NEVER! As much as I don't like Pack or Flurry I'd rather be with them than "Dan the Man".
ReplyDeleteEx RCG said: "As much as I don't like Pack or Flurry I'd rather be with them than 'Dan the Man'."
ReplyDeleteAre you for real?!?!
Why do you have to choose either/or? What about choosing none of them? You know the old saying, "The lesser of 2 evils is still evil." I'm ex-UCG and have come to that conclusion ie I can maintain a spiritual relationship with God through Christ Jesus & don't need to be in some man-made money-making machine or dependent on it to give me purpose or direction in life, tell me what is "truth" or how to be "saved." No thank you very much. I'll do just fine living in Christ.
Harping on Cohen? Get a life. That zio is a nothing!
ReplyDelete"Hold fast to all things"???
ReplyDeletehmmm, the bible says to prove all things and hold fast to that which is good....
don't want to sound like a nit picker, but, that's pretty important to get right.....