A New Home for My Blog

I have moved my blogging activity to a new location, and I'm still blogging about False Prophet Ronald Weinland.
Click the link for an easy transfer.

This Blogspot remains as an archive covering the period of April, 2008 through early July, 2009.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

The Ghost of Rose Mary

For the last couple of posts, we have been discussing in the comments sections of these posts False Prophet Ronald Weinland's appearance and and disappearance from ideaCity in Toronto. This discussion included the topic of which day, Wednesday or Thursday, was the day of his presentation. I stated that it was on Wednesday, not Thursday as Ron had stated. A couple of Weinland's followers, "Observer" and "Weinland Observer" have participated in these discussions. I am pleased that the discussion while with disagreements has been civil.

I came home from a grueling day at work to read the following comment on my last post from "Observer".

I have listened to last Saturday's sermon 3 times through and parts of it
several more times and I cannot for the life of me figure out how anyone could
think that Ron was making any significance out of the day he spoke at Idea City.
The day of the interview was important, marking the beginning of the second half
time but anything else is simply conjecture at best. This said, I heard Ron
refer to 3 specific times:
1. At 2:25 "the past Tuesday" -referring the day
they flew to Toronto
2. At 58:27 "a little over a week ago Thursday" -
referring to the day of the interview (June 11th)
3. At 60:58 "after the
second session started" - referring to when Ron spoke and since there were two
sessions in the morning and two in the afternoon of each day, the second session
would have happened after the midmorning break on Wednesday. I did not hear Ron say that he spoke on Thursday even though I played the section that you referred
to several times.
I think you are putting too much emphasis on what Weinland
Observer has said and not been careful enough to stick to the facts. In
referring to how God had prepared things perfectly for his talk, Ron was talking
about the fact that the speakers that had gone before him had spoken on topics
that naturally led into what he was going to speak about.
If it will make
Weinland Observer any happier though, I will point out that if the Thursday that
Ron did the interviews was the first day of the second half time, it would be
Wednesday, not Thursday, that would be the 7th day. However, I think that it is
only WO, and no one else, that has claimed that this is significant.
The first thing I did was to question myself. After all, "Observer" had pointed out something I didn't get quite right before. So I listened to the sermon yet again this evening, and yes, I had heard them correctly.

The second thought was that maybe "Observer" doesn't have "ears to hear" in this case. But he's really been pretty straight with me through our exchanges in the past few days, so I moved on to consider another possibility.

I downloaded the sermon yet again. The first thing I noticed was that the newly downloaded version was 2 minutes and 11 seconds shorter than the version I downloaded on Saturday evening, with a length of 1:46:35 instead of 1:48:46. So I wondered what happened to that 2 minutes and 11 seconds. Both sermons started off the same, so he had not had the announcments redacted earlier than he normally did. (Usually that doesn't happen until after the following Saturday.) So I looked for "Thursday"s.

At 7 minutes in the version of the sermon downloaded on Saturday:

On Thursday morning, I probably had one of the most unique experiences of my ministry in God's church.
At 6 minutes and 44 seconds into the version downloaded today, he said everything except what's in italics. That part was edited out.

At about 15 minutes and 10 seconds in the version downloaded Saturday, Ron said:

I gave this talk at ideaCity on Thursday, Thursday morning.
The speech was only about 20 minutes long.

In the version I downloaded today, he said everything except the part in italics. That part had been edited out.

In the version downloaded Saturday, at about 16 minutes and 20 seconds, Ron said:

But I wanted to mention, 7 days earlier, from Thursday, this past Thursday,
7 days
earlier before that speech was given that previous Thursday
marked a period of the time that we call, or can call, "Half a Time".
In the version downloaded today, at about 15 minutes and 40 seconds, Ron said the same thing except for the part in italics. That part had been edited out.

Continuing with the same scheme, at 17 minutes into the version downloaded Saturday, 16 minutes into the version downloaded today:

But on that previous Thursday, we had completed the first one-seventh of the end time. One seventh was now behind us. We have 6 more in front of us. Still a lot. But I marvel at what hasn't happened during that period of time, and I marvel at what has happened during that period of time. And all of this is significant as God does things in a very orderly manner. It's no coincidence that even seven days later I gave the kind of speech that God had me deliver. God is indeed setting the stage for far greater things to follow.
All the stuff in italics had been edited out. Ron sure is suddenly allergic to the word "Thursday".

Now I've seen accusations that Ron would edit his sermons to remove embarrassing statements such as these. I didn't believe it before, but I sure do now. It seems that someone besides "Weinland Observer" thought these comments were significant and went to the trouble to edit them out of the sermon.

In my last post, I directly linked the file from the church website. Since Ron has proven himself untrustworthy, I'm providing links to alternate copies available for download. Oh snap, why did I trust him at all? He broke the promises he made in his "If By Pentecost" declaration. He broke the promises he made in all those radio interviews that he would not alter his prophecies if they didn't happen. Oh, well -- fool me twice.

Anyway here are the links to the two versions of the sermon. (Files are around 18 MB long. Right-click and then save-as to your hard drive.)

So "Observer" I believe what you said -- you didn't hear him say "Thursday" in the sermon you listened. That was not the same sermon that Ron delivered on Saturday when he said that he spoke on Thursday at ideaCity, 7 days after the end of "Half a Time". I just wonder what else was edited out of the sermon, because the missing words I've mentioned do not account for all of the missing 2 minutes and 11 seconds.

So, what do you think Ron's story will be on Saturday? Or will he just pretend it didn't happen?

In case you're wondering about the title to this post, here's a Wikipedia article on Rose Mary.


Mike (Don't Drink the Flavor Aid) said...

"Observer" I'm curious: When did you download your copy of the sermon? If you're not sure check the "Date Modified" property in Windows Explorer.

"Weinland Observer" were your statements based on your recollection from hearing the sermon live? Or did you listen to a download, and if so when did you download it?

Kirrily XPKG said...

Well, well, well. VERY interesting indeed.

When I was in PKG, Nathan used to download the sermons live (at 4am or thereabouts on Sunday mornings here in Australia).

I used to download them later (not really a morning person) from the PKG site.

Sometimes I thought I was going crazy, as things were often said that I knew I would've remembered if I had heard them.

No - I can not recall any specifics.

This just takes the cake doesn't it.

Fraud, fake, insane, liar, arrogant, awful man. We are the ones who are the witneses - what we are witness to is the depth a lying false insane 'prophet' will go to to keep his own delusions going in his own sick mind.

I've got to wonder, Laura was so lovely to me (so was Ron for that matter - until I left that is) what on earth is she thinking now? I guess she is just as delusional, like all his followers.

It's been a lesson to me to see how you can really still believe something - IF YOU WANT TO - IF IT IS EASIER TO STILL BELIEVE.

Again, I'm glad I'm out!

Purple Hymnal said...

Oh, I cottoned on to that, the second or third post in to the WW blog. That's why I ALWAYS provided my own links to the sermons, which I downloaded, often as they were playing, or had donated by others, who had proper recording set up on their computers.

Don't trust the sneaky bastard one bit, it's not just the beginning and ending bits he chops out, as you've now proven. Excellent work, Mike! I wish I could still be involved and help out, unfortunately I just don't have the time --- my speedily slow death from the inside out (to have occurred after April 19, 2008) has even been put on hold, because I'm just too damn busy!! :-)

Purple Hymnal said...

"I've got to wonder, Laura was so lovely to me (so was Ron for that matter - until I left that is) what on earth is she thinking now?"

"Only a few more years till retirement, then we can really start living large!!"

Weinland Observer said...

I did listen to the live sermon and heard exactly what Weinland has deleted. I hope he mentions having done so and explains himself. I'll have to watch for that. If no explanation appears, I too will start being very suspicious. As for the comments on the seals opening in 1994, Weinland doesn't claim this but claims they began being revealed to him around 1900 years after Revelation was written.

Observer said...

Hi Mike,
I just listened to the June 20th version. The "Thursdays" do jump out at you when you are listening for them. I owe Weinland Observer an apology ... it is possible that Ron was emphasizing the fact that he spoke on the 7th day of the second half time. (which he did, Wednesday was the 7th day .... interesting) I totally missed any emphasis, as well as the mentioning of the incorrect day, when I listened to the sermon on Saturday. I listened to the entire sermon again on Monday and again yesterday. Although it appears that the mention of the days were deleted because of this blog, it is much more likely that they were removed as soon as it was noticed that the mistake was made, in order to avoid confusion. Getting the days confused is simply not a big enough deal to cause such a fuss! What is important is why Ron felt it necessary to leave Idea City. If you would spend as much time looking into this as you did in getting the days straight, you may get a little insight into what truly motivates this man.
Kirrily: You were right about Laura .... she really is a very warm and caring person. It is not her that has changed.

xHWA said...

you know what they say..
fool me once, shame on you. fool me 8 or more times, shame on me.

Whisper said...

"You were right about Laura .... she really is a very warm and caring person. It is not her that has changed."

While I have had some experience in psychological case logs I have noted that Laura is the quite wife of Ron, dedicated to Ron and a good helper in his ministry.
But, she must also believe in Ron's power as he decided she was to be the 2nd witness. God did not tell her, Ron did.
Laura also see's the dates come and go but not only hides it in the back of her mind, but continues to uphold Ron in spite of such things.
It's dedication, and that is a very GOOD thing to have in a husband. But it is also a leap of faith, she has already lept out into space and there is no going back now, in her mind IMO. So she is supportive of a sinister theology and disinformation (her husband is editing tapes for Gods sake). If you stand by someone whom is guilty you become guilty by association. If you help that person continue to commit crimes then you stand accused of the same crimes. It's and old story, but a sad one.
Laura has reaped the rewards of her position as wife to Ron and gained financially & socially from such. She has done so in the name of fidelity to God and fideltity to Ron, as is expected of ones wife. But she stands accused of helping a oppressive, lying, insane regime be strong and continue to hurt people.
One is not guilty or innocent, one is partially both, it's all in the details and perentages of each part of the same coin.

Food for thought...

todd said...

i have to ask if she is staying by his side because of her love for him, or (the more common reason) she is affraid of losing the lifestyle she has.
try to imagine being in her shoes, never worked a real job probably, no work experience, walk away from the criminal husband, then wonder how to live the rest of her days. that fear would paralize some people from doing the right thing.


Mel said...

I have a comment or two that may be applicable to the "warm and caring Laura" comments above:

I have had people in a number of destructive cults try and recruit me into their orgs.
In each and every case, while the people were trying to recruit me, they were not only "warm and caring" towards me, but they exceeded the description of "warm and caring"
(Some cult experts call it "Love Bombing")

And in each and every case, after the people learned that I was not "teachable" by them, I received the cold shoulder by them, at best.

I have gotten advice by some of them that "You can't believe everything you read on the internet about us."
I have had some of them say I am being influenced by demons.
I have had some of them say I am wallowing in negativity.
I have had some of them say my heart just isn't open enough.
I have had some of them tell me I need to pray and fast and I will eventually "see the light"
Some have told lies about me and gotten their friends to stop speaking to me.

Bottom line:
If Laura was once "warm and caring" toward you, but since you now consider her husband to be a con-man, and now Laura isn't interested in painting your toenails any more, don't be too surprised:
It's all part of the dynamics of destructive cults, and how the people involved tend to operate.

Destructive cults are largely about recruitment and retention. They rely on those things for their income and stature.
If you are not going to be a part of their org, and especially if you have criticism, you become 'persona non grata'.

Mike (Don't Drink the Flavor Aid) said...

My understanding is that the love bombing has stopped.

Questions from prospective members are put off with "you need to read the website" and requests for baptisms are met with "where's your tithe check?"

Whisper, when you use the word crimes, I hope you're talking in a generic sense rather than a legal one. Religious fraud is not a crime in the US, although in my opinion it should be.

Maybe Ron was genuinely confused as to which day it was. But then he worked all this other stuff in, about it being 7 days apart, etc, etc. How did he get so confused between the prior Saturday when he stated it was to be on Wednesday, and the following Saturday when he thought it had been on Thursday -- a point about which he was consistently confused throughout the sermon. Not a simple mistatement -- why the confusion on such a fundamental question? And then we have the quiet editing. Will be interesting to see if he has an explanation and what it is.

Whisper said...


I'm inclined to agree in spirit :-)
But who know? She might be scared, she might be supportive, she might have her own agenda's, she might be totaly brainwashed by the WWCG that gave Ron his delusions as well? Who knows?
She is, Ron given of course, a witness but can not say anything. She can not because I rather think that Rons church is Male, women support and keep quite (interpreation of Pauls scripture I guess). A prisoner, a warden, a guard? Who knows... But that is not her place in the Church, her place is to be a warm body that Ron can place a title on, like witness, and fear not that she will rebel. Can you imagine the rebelious power that would have been bestowed on any male member of the church given such a title? They could then "speak" with authority, God given mind you, and Ron would have a rebel within the church way to close to the throne.

I don't know how Laura feels about any of this, but we will not know for a long while to come. If I was indoctrinated within the WWGC and then UGC and then the COG-PKG and the very wife of the head man himself I would feel very repressed and scared as well. I would like my comfort begotten by tithing the heard and my social status as 2nd of all (even though I was a woman in a mans church).
But once again, who knows? Ron would never let her talk, it would be just another threat to his status, what if the congregation liked her just a bit to much?
Sad... very sad.

Mike (Don't Drink the Flavor Aid) said...

Let's not forget that back in December Ron ordained Laura as "Prophetess" and placed her just below him over the evangelists and the rest of the church. I figure it's a contingency move for him to maintain control of the church should the IRS take him into custody. Ron would pass orders along when she comes to visit him.

Whisper said...

"Whisper, when you use the word crimes, I hope you're talking in a generic sense rather than a legal one. Religious fraud is not a crime in the US, although in my opinion it should be."

Mike, I use the word "criminal" theoretically and absolutely not legally. What is a crime? What is a criminal? These words can encompass a larger meaning than the simple legal-ease. Legally I am sure both Ron & Laura are in good standing, minus of course Rons long standing dispute with the IRS concerning $$ in foreign accounts... That all seems to rest upon Ron and not Laura... but what impact did she have on that business? Dunno, has a crime against God been commited?

todd said...

good point, i would be assuming she is not willingly participating in this con.
we just can't say for sure. It's just not in me to believe that about someone right off the bat. I guess my postion is based on what appears to be a very controlling environement.

Mike (Don't Drink the Flavor Aid) said...

"minus of course Rons long standing dispute with the IRS concerning $$ in foreign accounts... That all seems to rest upon Ron and not Laura... but what impact did she have on that business?"

The court filings from 11 months ago indicated that Laura was not a target of the IRS investigation. But that doesn't mean that evidence has not been uncovered leading them to target her also. But my guess is that she is not. While she travels everywhere with Ron, I have the impression that he visited his Swiss bank by himself.

"Dunno, has a crime against God been commited?"

Deut 18:20-22 indicates that one has been, and also defines the penalty. But I'm against anyone presuming to apply this penalty against the presumptuous prophet.

Mark said...

Of course he has to edit his sermons because they are not of God. Since they aren't inspired, he has to clean them up.
This behavior should also not surprise anyone since he has always been shifty with what he says- he always says one thing and does the complete opposite! That's what the Bible calls a liar. That you can be 100% sure about.

Kirrily XPKG said...

I just remembered at the Feast last year, that Laura had been purchasing things on interest free, knowing that the money would not need to be paid back because of all the nukes going off - she said to me directly that would be in Jan 09.

She was even encouraging Sharna to do the same.

In Laura's defense, she did say to only do it if you could pay it back anyway.

But is that not very dishonest or what! If you knew the 'end' was coming, isn't it wrong to go on a shopping splurge and doing it because you don't think you will have to pay it back?

I wonder how many members of PKG did this? I'm glad I didn't - would be in all sorts of debt if I had of.

Sharna did go and purchase a brand new Laptop on interest free - so she could listen to sermons during the tribulation for as long as the batteries lasted.

Just think it was wrong then, and especially now.

To me, it's just wrong borrowing not intending, or thinking you would not have to pay it back.

But that's just me.

Kirrily XPKG said...

Oh yes, and the comment made in these posts about Ron taking references out about the wrong day in the sermon, to save confusion - well, Ron himself has said he did not delete certain interviews stating the first timeline - even if it did cause confusion, because 'it's not up to me, it's up to God to show them' - well, I guess he has changed his mind and has decided God needs some help getting people to understand all his 'prophecies'.

Mike (Don't Drink the Flavor Aid) said...

"I guess he has changed his mind and has decided God needs some help getting people to understand all his 'prophecies'"

Ron is such a bad prophet, that he can't even prophesy accurately something that happened 3 days earlier.

Whisper said...

Well Farrah Fawcett and then Michael Jackson dies... shades of thunder #5? But I thought the competing leaders of WWCG splinters where supposed to die in mass first then the well known peoples and then the masses...
As a well healed member of the "masses" club I feel privledged to be in Rons 3rd class of Thunder 5. Now, where do I buy my ticket to the afterlife in accordance with Rons inspired book?


Mike (Don't Drink the Flavor Aid) said...

You forgot Ed McMahon. You must not have ears to hear ;)

And I guess I don't either, since I haven't heard that any of the First Five Ministers to Die have died. As far as I know, they're all still alive and abusing their own followers.

Mark said...

Just look at the fruits people. Ron's church is whithering on the vine. Our end-of-the-world prophet has had zero correct prophecies, changes his story all the time, and is now stooping to deleting parts of his sermons that don't cast him in the best light. He's desperate.

Maybe Ron hasn't quite made the switch to digital and is still communicating with God in analog. Ron NEVER talks about how he communicates with God. But, he expects everyone to believe him without question. The symbiotic relationship between the members and Ron is very strong. How else can you explain their undying devotion to a person who is proven to be false?