PCG's Wayne Turgeon's Ungodly Advice On Punishing Your Children: Because Silly Children Bring Shame Upon Their Human Father and the PCG

Wayne Turgeon offering advice on child rearing and punishment????? Wayne?  The very same guy who treats members like dirt?  Wayne?  The only reason he is in the position he is in now is that he married into Flurry's family.  If he had not done that he would be just one more sorry loser from Pasadena, much like Steve Gilbreath is.

Wayne wants you to start disciplining your children at a YOUNG age.  You should only say no once and then start spanking and punishing your child.  Notice that he says if a child doesn't obey, it is your INVITATION to punish him/her.  In Armstrongism and Flurryism, that "invitation" means spanking. Not a wimpy little swat, but a pain inducing smack of a paddle or hand.

When children are young, they should be taught the meaning of the word “no.” This simple two-letter word, in too many cases, is not properly adhered to. You should only have to say no once; if the child doesn’t obey, then that’s your invitation to properly train and correct the child. If we fail to react, the child thinks no isn’t a word to fear. This could result in much more serious consequences than if we had punished the child for disobeying. If the child knows that no means no the first time, you may even save him from a life-threatening situation. If a child wanders away and begins running toward a busy intersection, “no!” may be the only thing that can save him. In that situation, how thankful a parent would be if the child had been reared to understand what no meant.

Rebellious kiddies in Flurryism MUST be brought under the LAW!  Get out your King James and tell your child what happens when he disobeys the 613 LAWS!

Rebellion in a child requires you to bring him under the law. If you do not, the child, rather than the father, rules the household. When a child breaks a rule because he resents authority, that is a serious problem which must be dealt with. We live in an age where we see many helpless parents openly challenged by their children. Our young people need parents who care enough to challenge them when their behavior might lead to tragic consequences. Parents have a God-given duty to provide their children the security of clearly established limits in behavior.

Punishment is always proportional to the crime.  That's what the god of Armstrongism does.  The more it is pissed the more painful the punishment will be.  Armstrognism's god loves to dish out punishment to law breakers.

We must always make sure the punishment fits the crime. After a child is punished for breaking a rule or disobeying a parent, he should be very repentant for what he did! If he is truly sorry, then you will soon see a happy child. If the child is not repentant after punishment occurs, we must stay with the correction until he does become repentant, no matter how long it takes. When a child’s attitude is still wrong after correction, that child’s attitude of rebellion has not been broken. There is resentment toward authority, either open or subtle, and it must be rooted out. If we can’t get our children to properly fear us quickly, we are in for a long lifetime of needless pain and suffering.

Then Wayne has the audacity to heap praise on Garner Ted Armstrogning's booklet on how to beat your child.  If you child will not listen to you then you MUST take it to the ministry where Wayne will tell you what to do. Wayne, like all ministers in Flurryism are God's instruments and when they speak God miraculous proceeds forth from them.

The Plain Truth About Child Rearing by Garner Ted Armstrong, published by the Worldwide Church of God, offers invaluable advice on this subject. Seek counsel from one of God’s true ministers. God has provided us with all the knowledge we need to do it right! But do we diligently seek after God’s knowledge, fully intent on applying it? Or, like so many in this world, are we experimenting with our children, hoping to find some method that will finally work?

Cranky kids who are sick or have allergies are personal weaknesses brought about by sin.  Remember that sin produces health issues.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses in child rearing. In addition, there may be other contributors to children misbehaving, like allergies or poor health. But other factors and personal weaknesses must not become excuses for our failures in properly rearing our children. As Herbert W. Armstrong said, there is cause and effect. There is a reason why children become rebellious.

Exuberant silly kids have no place in Flurryism.  I cannot image the hell that the kids at Imperial Academy do through daily with this kind of sick advice.  We saw the rampant child abuse at Imperial Schools under HWA's regime.  It is no different now under Flurry's regime.

What about silliness in our children? Obviously, we want our children to laugh and have a good time, but it should not get out of hand. When this begins to happen, the parent who is in tune with his child will say, “I want you to settle down.” The child should respond immediately. “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” (Proverbs 29:15). This scripture mentions mother, but it also brings shame on the family name, which is the father’s heritage. Children left to run wild can also bring shame upon the Church, the mother of us all.

E. W King All Excited About Monica Lewinsky's "Frontal" Attack

King is all a twitter right now about the "HOT" new story about  Monica Lewinsky's "frontal" attack on Bill Clinton.  Is he talking about her original escapade or is he assuming she is out now to help derail Hilary's potential bid to the Presidency?

Perhaps Mr. King needs to reread the Missing Dimension in Sex.  Oral sex is not looked upon favorably by Herbert.

If A Women Does Not Wear Her Veil In Church Then Cut Her Hair Off!

James Malm is back with his veils for women in his cult as they pray or study the Bible.  Because he is a literalist it is necessary that women have their hair cut off if they do not wear a veil when they pray.

Paul taught that:

1 Cor 11:5   But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: 6 For if the woman be not covered [will not cover her hair], let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered [cover her glorious hair in humility].

Women ought to cover their glory [hair] with a veil, modest hat  or cloth when they pray or prophesy, as a sign of humility that they are subject to their fathers or husbands as an example for the angels; that as the angels are subject to authority ,so are they, as Paul instructs.  And if they refuse to do so, they are to have their heads of glorious hair shaved off, as Paul also instructs.

Lest you think he is joking he adds:

I know that there are some who would wish covering women’s hair away, by saying it was a particular custom of that day.  To do that is no different from wishing the teachings of Nehemiah away concerning the Sabbath with the same reasoning.  If this were merely a local custom for that time; it would not be recorded as instructions for God’s people.

 
This is what he expects his women to wear when praying or reading the Bible at church and at home:

Why does Malm expect this of his women?  Because they set an example for the angels.  Angles will be impressed by their humility and it demonstrates that the women are submissive.

The second question is that:  If women are not praying or speaking in the meeting why do they need to cover their hair?  Paul says it is to set an example for the angels, of willing submission to their husbands, as an allegory of willing submission to Christ.

Katakalupto, the word that refers to the covering a woman places on her head, is composed of the prefix kata-(‘down”) and kalupto (“cover”). This is exactly what a scarf or shawl does — it hangs down from the top of the head and covers the woman’s hair.

...God uses the woman’s naturally long hair to show that He expects the woman to cover her head with a scarf or shawl, and He uses the man’s absence of long hair to show that the man should not be covered with a scarf or shawl hanging down over his head like a woman. 5 This is why Paul appeals to nature in the preceding verse (“Does not even nature itself teach you?”). 6 The man’s short hair need not be covered but the woman’s glorious hair should be covered as a sign of humility when appearing before God.

...if the woman refuses to wear a scarf or shawl, she should also remove her natural covering, her hair. In other words, she should wear both coverings while engaged in religious activities or none at all.

Malm also makes the claim that COG women in India all covered their hair until 1988

In India in 1988, all the isolated COG women wore headcoverings.

“When the Apostle Thomas brought the gospel to India in the First Century, he taught that the woman’s head should be covered,” they explain, “and they have been doing it ever since. Pastors in India never need to tell the women to cover their heads. The women know the Bible tells them to do it, so they do it.”

Malm ends with this:

Those women who do not wear a headcovering only because “nobody else does it” may think they are being humble and spiritual by refusing to draw attention to themselves. The sad truth is that preserving their reputation among their peers is more important to them than obeying the will of God .  The Role of Women In Church

Its easy to see why he is a divorced man now.  With this legalistic nonsense forced on his wife and his obscene preoccupation with writing two blogs he has no time for women. Legalsim has totally warped the mind of so many men in Armstrongsm.  If they are these kinds of tyrants in this world who would want to live under their rule on some planet in the kingdom?