High Noon for Ronald Weinland…


is today. If nukes don’t drop today on U.S. ports, he promised he’d stop preaching (which according to Laurie and some others on this site, would be a merciful thing). Being the liar he is, though, don’t look for him to keep his word, for that is the way these cult leaders operate: they make outlandish statements, then change the rules of engagement when things don’t pan out.

The folks I feel for are some who responded to my January post on Weinland with confidence that he was speaking the truth, that they had found in Weinland’s teaching what they hadn’t found in “religion”. Now that he’s been proven a phony, will they continue to follow blindly? Some folks undoubtedly will, accepting this false prophet’s spin as he tries to maintain his power. I pray that some will turn, not to dead religion that always fails people, but to the living God in Christ.


  1. Laurie on July 16, 2008 at 11:19 am

    RW didn’t mention anything about this deadline in his last sermon – I think he feels he’s already weasled his way out of it so he’s “moving on” as he says at least 100 times when he teaches. I wonder what’s in the minds of his followers – I know I have peace of mind. I wonder too about those who were waiting for this date to see what he would do if nothing happened – will they get a clue and move on as well? Hopefully they’ll move far away from him.

  2. Warren Throckmorton on July 16, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    8:27 pm and PA is intact.

  3. Byron on July 17, 2008 at 9:21 am

    And now it’s officially Thursday, July 17, and no nukes have destroyed anything to my knowledge (except the credibility of a charlatan), and Ronald Weinland is, without a shadow of a doubt, a fraud.

  4. greg on July 21, 2008 at 12:19 pm


    I recieved a email telling me that hotmail was wedding accounts and they needed to verify that I still used mine….
    now that I look back…I feel like an idiot!

    I replied and now my account is DELETED!

  5. ed on August 31, 2008 at 12:37 pm


  6. Citizen X on September 29, 2008 at 6:01 pm


    I like the blog here. I also blog about Ronald Weinland.

    Anyways, like the blog and have a great day!

    -Citizen X

  7. Laurie on September 29, 2008 at 6:34 pm

    Citizen X,

    Welcome! I checked out your site, on which you say you are observing the situation with RW and provided a forum designed to give him a fair shot.

    What is your opinion of him at this time? Tomorrow starts his new timeline, are you anticipating that things will progress as he says or are you still in a wait and see mode?

    I read thru some of the comments on the different threads on your website, not alot of tolerance for questions or anyone who is not willing to jump on board – I understand what your intention was in providing a place for people to share in a non-threatening environment – at the same time it seems to me that it’s not possible to have a reasonable discussion with anyone there on legitimate questions if you’re not allowed to disagree; but of course there are other forums for that. Me personally – I’m a question girl, being told what I have to believe wouldn’t work for me.

    Interesting to read their perspectives, though.

    Will you be posting a new article about his newest timeline do you think? I’ve not listened to his sermons for the last couple of weeks but from what I see on the other blogs, he’s not said anything much about it – seems to be kind of on the down low right now.

  8. Eric on September 29, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    Hey X good to see you here. This is a good blog. Lot of good input and good people. I am Ricfly on your blog.

    I am still a fence rider. Things are interesting right now. Anyway Citizen X, nice to see you out and about.

  9. Citizen X on October 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Hey Laurie,

    Thank you. I created The Weinland Witness initially for the sole purpose of providing another perspective to Ronald Weinland. I feel there are so many forums and blogs where you will find those that believe he is a false prophet.

    And believe me, I’ve wanted to have it resolved as much as anyone. I am a Bible-believer and know that the two witnesses WILL emerge on the scene at some point – whether Weinland is one of them is impossible to tell at this point. As I’ve said before, one cannot discount the possibility that Ronald Weinland truly sinned in contaminating God’s message with his own timing.

    I documented various cases in the past where prominent figures in the Bible committed egregious sins, yes God still used them to accomplish great things. So I cannot personally discount this as an impossibility.

    However, I wish to have it resolved as soon as possible. There are several ways this could happen. One, if his “verifiable” prophecies come true. Second, if they do NOT.

    In my opinion, there is no more room for error for Weinland. He cannot say that he “interjected his own understanding” once more; this is make or break time.

    As for the lack of Weinland-haters, I simply do not allow them. I’ve stated my position many times, and when people continuously comment without understanding my position or the facts upon which I base it, it seems fruitless and pointless to me. There are tens, if not hundreds of other avenues of discussion if people wish to meet likeminded peers that believe Weinland is a false prophet.

    I have created a forum where those undecideds and believers can gather, without fear of ridicule or rabid Weinland-bashing, and I plan on keeping it that way until this matter is resolved.

    Regardless, thanks for your respnse and God bless.

    -Citizen X

  10. Laurie on October 6, 2008 at 1:21 am

    Citizen X,

    Since this is the first time I’ve seen you post here, I was unaware that you have stated your position many times on why you do not allow “Weinland-haters” on your site; which, by the way, is not how I view myself even though I believe RW is a false prophet.

    I believe asking questions is a good thing, and we ask a lot of questions on this site, so don’t feel singled out or picked on – we’ve all been challenged here.

    That being said, perhaps you could clarify a couple of things for me. You said you documented various cases where men in the Bible who committed egregious sins were still used by God. Were any of the men you researched unrepentant about their sin? Based on the standard set in Deut.18:22, RW, despite what he says, did sin by being presumptuous, and is unrepentant. You said you would consider this resolved if his verifiable prophecies either come true or do not, and that there is no more room for RW to be in error. I’m unclear as to why you didn’t come to that conclusion the first time he was wrong.

    In Deut. 18:22 I don’t see room for any error whatsoever, and I see no good reason for trying to get around it to give a “prophet” another chance – if you’re going to give him one more chance, why not give him two or three more? On what basis, having set aside the standard given, do you then decide how many more chances is enough? There are some who will continue to accept the excuses he comes up with; that’s their choice, obviously, but if I choose to uphold the high standard God set for His prophets, is that really grounds for being considered someone who is “hateful”? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to get you to change your position on who can post on your site, that is your decision and I think anyone who posts there should respect it.

    I would also like to know if you agree with RW’s teaching. He claims everything he is saying comes from God; that you must agree with the teachings of HWA, tithe, observe the Sabbath, and be a member of his church, which happens, from all I’ve read, after you send your tithe, which then entitles you to be baptized. I’m guessing you haven’t necessarily committed yourself to this extent, since you’re waiting for his verifiable prophecies to confirm his prophet status – if he indeed is God’s prophet, then his teachings and requirements for church membership have to be true as well – have you considered this, and if so, what are your thoughts?

  11. Citizen X on October 6, 2008 at 5:51 pm

    Hello Laurie,

    Yes, I mentioned several biblical examples where major figures in history committed egregious sins and were still deemed by God fit for his purpose. Up until a short while I had considered this an acceptable comparison. However, recently a member of the Church mentioned to me how Ronald Weinland did not consider “presumptuousness” a sin. Moreover, this member communicated the fact to me that they in the Church believe Ronald Weinland’s stated timing was given to him by God, and thus not Weinland’s own understanding.

    I have considerable difficulty reconciling that with R.W.’s own blog post, where he specifically mentions “presumptuousness” on his part, in addition to “interjecting his own understanding” with regards to the timing of certain predicted events. Now, this as a sin I could find biblically compatible.

    However, if it is the Church’s current position that Ronald Weinland did NOT sin in being “presumptuous” and “interjecting his own understanding”, I would have tremendous difficulty finding that compatible with biblical Scripture.

    I plan on conducting some more research to ascertain what the Church’s official position on this matter is. If it is indeed that R.W. did not sin, I would find that troubling indeed.

    As for the other matter, I have listened to several sermons and understand the basic theology. I understand the Church’s concepts of tithing, the Sabbath, and various other doctrinal precepts. On the whole, much of what Ronald Weinland says is true regarding the veracity of the Bible and regarding the Catholic Church.

    However, I am not a member and do not plan on becoming one until I have seen several prophecies verified. There are those who say my blog is a pro-Weinland one. Well, even the Church is not happy with me. They have even told their members to stop commenting on my blog because of the position I advocate. I was disappointed to lose the interesting contributions, but nonetheless my beliefs are founded upon biblical Word.

    God bless and I hope this clarifies things a bit.


    -Citizen X

  12. Laurie on October 6, 2008 at 11:41 pm

    Citizen X,

    Regardless of what position RW’s church has taken, the Bible is very clear on what position God has taken on this, in Deut. 18:22, which states that if a prophet (someone who claims to be speaking for God) says something that does not come to pass, he WAS presumptuous, and it was not from God. For RW or his church to claim otherwise does not line up with scripture.

    We’ve had pro-Weinland people posting here, and one thing they all seem to have in common is a reluctance to answer direct questions. This seriously undermines their credibility, yet even when this is pointed out to them, they continue to evade them and distract attention by bringing up things like the Catholic church, Sunday worship, etc. It doesn’t work, but they do it anyway.

    What concerns me greatly about this is seeing people looking to RW and his church for answers instead of God’s word – the Bible instructs us to reason together, with God’s word being our standard against which everything is measured – anyone claiming to have the truth should not have a problem doing this and be able to provide biblical support for their beliefs, something RW and his church have failed to do. Instead, we’re told God has to show us, we’re rebellious, we just want to have pagan parties – this kind of response is not very mature and not a substitute for a biblical answer – it demonstrates that they cannot support their views with scripture.

    So RW’s church is not happy with your blog? I’m guessing your “wait and see” attitude doesn’t sit well with them. They refuse to deal with or accept anyone who questions RW – is that really the group you want to be a part of? While I don’t agree with the position you’ve taken, I’m glad you’re asking questions.

  13. Manuel Apodaca on October 27, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    Maybe Ronald Wienland has the powers of Moses and is able to do Miracles of illusion and all is well, but for you people who doubt him are all under a powerful delusion. And mean time everybody else is really already in paradise and watching others go through tribulation just as the Jews watched as the plagues which were poured out against the Egyptians for non belief of who God was. It does mention in Revelation that the people would not repent of there Gold or Silver (STATUS IN LIFE). Thank God if your just a simpleton.

  14. Laurie on October 27, 2008 at 11:46 pm


    I would feel like a simpleton if I had trusted a man who made prophecies that failed; who presumptuously spoke for God and refused to repent. I would feel even worse if I disobeyed God and feared/respected such a man, who has proven he does not speak for God.

    RW has demonstrated none of the qualities Revelation attributes to the Two Witnesses. It would take a tremendous amount of faith, or a powerful delusion, to believe he is one of the Witnesses and a true prophet. My faith is in Deut. 18:22 – God’s word, spoken by God’s prophet.

  15. Warren Throckmorton on January 12, 2009 at 5:08 pm

    Where is my main man, Israelite?

    The other thread is kaput so I had to look up my homie RW and give a shout out to Izzy.

    Izzy, are we still on for the inauguration?

    Hey howz Laurizzle and the rest of the gang?

  16. Warren Throckmorton on January 12, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    Manuel – Simpleton here.

    Do you know Israelite? I miss him; if you see him in your Reality, tell him, we got a date for the Obama swear-in.

    Wanna come too?

  17. Laurie on January 12, 2009 at 5:58 pm

    Don’t know about anybody else, but I’m still out here. I’ve been looking in on other RW blogs to keep up with his ever-changing timeline – Mike over at Don’t Drink the Flavor-Aid is doing a great job reporting on his sermons, so I’m happy to get the highlights from him and not have to listen to 2 hours of mind-numbing rhetoric.

    I haven’t seen any RW people posting anywhere but on The Weinland Witness. And Citizen X is quick to stop any naysayers from challenging them with direct questions. That site reminds me of an internet compound – I can almost see the locked gates, No Trespassing signs, and barbed wire fences; faces peeking out from behind drawn curtains. Just kidding, Citizen X, but I do wonder if you’ve made up your mind about RW yet.

  18. Warren Throckmorton on January 12, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Hey Laurie – does Izzy post over at those other sites you mentioned? I want to go hunt him up. I just know he is ready to leave the compound.

  19. Warren Throckmorton on January 12, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    PS – Hey Byron, what’s shaking?

    • Byron on January 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm

      Just a-waitin’ for Israelite to keep his/her promise, to show up on Inauguration Day.

      Not holdin’ my breath, but hey, it’d be great, wouldn’t it?

  20. Laurie on January 12, 2009 at 11:25 pm


    I haven’t seen Israelite anywhere, not even on The Weinland Witness. All the blogs are hammering RW pretty hard – with good reason. After July of last year RW started telling his people to stay off the blogs – I’m guessing that became a good excuse to slink away from having to face up to RW’s failures.

    If Israelite is posting on Weinland Witness, it’s under another name. I’m not so sure anyone there is ready to leave the compound; they’re in a holding pattern. They’re still kidding themselves that people who are telling it like they see it are “Weinland-haters” who are speaking brashly and will end up looking like fools. I’m quoting my long-suffering friend Citizen X, who can’t seem to let go of the idea that this is all a personal vendetta against RW.

    Israelite, you’ve been formally invited to Don’t Drink the Kool-Aid’s Inaugural Gathering.

  21. Laurie on January 14, 2009 at 12:23 am

    No R.S.V.P. from Israelite? Citizen X, you’re invited too – you’ve stated that the time has not yet come, but it is swiftly approaching – what constitutes decision time for you?

    I think Barak Obama will be sworn in next Tuesday. Does that sound like a prophecy? Didn’t think so. How about this – “no new president will take office in January” – sounds like I know something the rest of you don’t, doesn’t it? RW made this statement in one of his sermons – now, I didn’t listen to that particular one, so I don’t know what the context of it was, but in other sermons I’ve heard him say the things he teaches are from God. He has now backed off saying it wasn’t a prophecy, but he can’t have it both ways – is his teaching based on his own understanding and opinions, or is it straight from God? Since he has now stated this was only an opinion, not a prophecy – we can safely say his “opinion” was wrong and he doesn’t know what will happen next Tuesday, just like he didn’t know his original timeline was wrong.

    On The Weinland Witness, one poor soul, attempting to defend RW, said that “it was an opinion at a time when the Church still believed that Jesus would return on Trumpets. This is what God ‘corrected’ in the 50th Truth. Timing was then moved forward by about 8 months.” Why did the Church believe that – oh yeah – because that’s what RW told them. God “corrected” that, though, in the 50th Truth – God doesn’t correct Himself – that would mean He was wrong about something, which is not possible.

    2008 – God’s Final Witness – it’s over, time to close the book.

  22. Warren Throckmorton on January 14, 2009 at 9:20 pm

    Speaking of the Weinland Witness, here is the skinny on Weinlandish spin on the inauguration:

    From commenter Charity:

    Mr Weinland said that he didn’t think that a new president would be seated. It was not stated as a prophesy and it was his opinion at a time when the Church still believed that Jesus Christ would return on Trumpets. This is what God corrected in the 50th Truth. Timing was then moved forward by about 8 months.

  23. Warren Throckmorton on January 14, 2009 at 9:21 pm

    PS – Israelite must be in the inner circle like Charity since Izzy thought fo sho that RW was going to be right about the coronation next week.

  24. Warren Throckmorton on January 14, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    Argh, I meant Izzy must NOT be in the inner circle…

  25. Warren Throckmorton on January 14, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    Only 60 from Don.

    Just sayin…

    • Byron on January 15, 2009 at 9:11 am

      Yeah, STOP sayin’. 🙂

      Man, you’ve really gotten into the Weinland thing, haven’t you? Well, we’re five days away from finding out if Izzy’s Weinland-faith is such that it causes him to keep promises. The excitement is palpable…well, maybe not actually, palpable, but would you believe…

  26. Laurie on January 14, 2009 at 11:55 pm

    Talking about cults and compounds, Dr. Phil had a show about cults today – he featured Wayne Bent aka Michael Travesser and an Islamic group, the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors. Michael is the self-professed Messiah who was convicted last month of one count of criminal sexual contact with a minor and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. On Dec. 30 he was sentenced to 18 years in prison, 8 of which were suspended.

    Two former members, who left a mother and two sisters behind when they left the group, appeared on the show. Upon his conviction, Michael began a fast, saying that if sent to prison, he’d fast until death. His group was fasting along with him, and the two former members became concerned about their family – they went to the compound and were able to meet with them. The entrance to the compound looked exactly like you’d think it would – locked gates, No Trespassing signs, and barbed wire fences.

    The former members said their relatives were very thin, and their eyes looked dead. A psychiatrist on the show said the blankness in their eyes is indicative of training their minds not to think. Typically in cults people are not allowed to think for themselves, to have doubts or ask questions. They are still convinced Michael is who he claims to be and would not leave the compound.

    Not being allowed to question what you’re being told is a dangerous thing.

    By the way, Michael ended his fast. Another cult leader who makes dramatic statements and doesn’t follow thru.

  27. Warren Throckmorton on January 15, 2009 at 10:19 am

    I am here announcing Warren’s Weinland Window Watch (WWWW or Wx4 for short).

    All are welcome to join.

    And yes, the palpability is so palpable you can cut it with a paper cutter.

  28. Warren Throckmorton on January 15, 2009 at 10:28 am

    I forgot how you can join.

    Just sing (to the tune of Jacob’s Ladder)and your in.

    We are watching Weinland’s Window
    We are watching Weinland’s Window
    We are watching Weinland’s Window
    Now we’re comatose.

  29. Laurie on January 15, 2009 at 10:45 am

    Warren’s Weinland Window Watch – try saying that five times real fast – gives your lips a real workout!

  30. Warren Throckmorton on January 15, 2009 at 10:48 am

    Laurie – You cannot enter the WWWW without singing the song. Do not try to offer a false means of entrance. Repeating WWWW five times or fifty times will not work. You must be WILLing to sing the SONG.

  31. Laurie on January 15, 2009 at 11:25 am

    American Idol is holding auditions; have you heard some of the caterwauling people are capable of? You may want to rethink making people sing to join. Maybe a funny handshake or a nice blood oath? I’ll sing if I must, just don’t wish me into the cornfield.

  32. Laurie on January 15, 2009 at 11:31 am

    I guess a handshake wouldn’t work so well…

  33. Warren Throckmorton on January 15, 2009 at 11:43 am

    Laurie – Are you doubting the truth I am bringing here? There is a song that has been revealed and you seem to doubt the annointing.

    If you are not willing to sing, then, well, you know…

  34. Laurie on January 15, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    OK, OK – you don’t have to get cranky! I’ll sing the song. Lalalalalalala – that’s me warming up.

    What’s the punishment for daring to question you? Scowls and chastisement in your next post? Making me wear a scarlet “M” and “S” (Mocker & Scoffer)?

    Jeeeezzz… I don’t think I’m going to like this.

  35. Warren Throckmorton on January 15, 2009 at 1:07 pm

    No punishment; you should want to follow the truth gladly.

    You will have to borrow the official M&S tee from Byron…or was the S&M?

    • Byron on January 15, 2009 at 1:36 pm

      From Wikipedia:

      E. Warren Throckmorton is an associate professor of Psychology at Grove City College, Grove City, Pennsylvania. He is also a Fellow for Psychology and Public Policy at Grove City College’s Center for Vision and Values.[citation needed] He is a nationally known counselor and psychology professor, best recognized for his research and writing regarding sexual orientation and religious conflicts.[citation needed] Ed. Note:They want a citation? I could cite ’em a few things…

      Throckmorton’s academic work has been published by journals of the American Psychological Association, the American Mental Health Counseling Association and the Christian Association for Psychological Studies. Throckmorton is past-president of the American Mental Health Counselors Association and is past-chair of the Ethics Committee. For six years, Throckmorton served on the National Provider Advisory Board of Magellan Behavioral Healthcare, the largest behavioral healthcare company in the world. In 2004, he wrote and produced the documentary I Do Exist, about sexual orientation change. In 2005 he produced a shortened version called Sexual Orientation: Is Change Possible.[1][2] Throckmorton has appeared on the O’Reilly Factor, FOX News Live, CNN, Prime Time America and numerous other TV and radio talk shows. His columns have been published by over 100 newspapers nationwide.[3][4] His research interests include sexual orientation, anti-bullying policies, abstinence education and mental health service delivery and financing. He runs a personal blog.[5]

      I’m just wondering how a “Fellow” is able to devote so much time to the WWWW…

  36. Warren Throckmorton on January 15, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Byro Baby – That is the other Warren Throckmorton…


    • Byron on January 15, 2009 at 2:28 pm

      Oh, yeah, that’s right, like “Multiplicity”. Gotcha. There are just so many darn people named “E. Warren Throckmorton” around.

  37. Laurie on January 15, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    Wow, Warren, now I’m wondering if you’ll accept a little nobody like me into your group. Actually, you seem like a real down-to-earth guy; if you can be silly you must have joy in your heart.

  38. Warren Throckmorton on January 15, 2009 at 6:28 pm


    Byron, have you ever known me to be silly!?

    Laurie, I think you may need to enter a probation period.

    • Byron on January 16, 2009 at 10:43 am

      “Silly”? Warren Throckmorton? No, Laurie, that word wouldn’t describe him.

      Warren left “silly” behind many years ago. He’s elevated “silly” to an art form that makes the original word pale in comparison. Warren is to “silly” what Tiger Woods is to “some guy who plays golf”, or what Ronald Weinland is to “some guy who gets some stuff wrong”.

      That’s the kind of “Fellow” he is…

  39. Laurie on January 16, 2009 at 11:31 am

    I bow to the Master of Silly.

Leave a Comment