Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

This page is not representative of the person or history of Herbert W Armstrong

Why is there no mention of the controversy surrounding HWA and WCG in this article? As it stands this article is not worthy of an encyclopaedia, but represents a deliberately falsified view of it’s subject and is in no way neutral. This article could be potentially harmful to persons seeking neutral information on Herbert W Armstrong. The word harmful, in this case, is not overstatement considering that the largest site devoted to Herbert W Armstrong, his organisation The Worldwide Church of God and it’s schismatic offshoots is ‘The Exit & Support Network’ and is devoted to the many ‘Survivors of Armstrongism’.

I will give here just one example of the bias of this article which results in a falsified view of it’s subject: The section ‘ Reaching out to the world’ contains the statement: ‘Armstrong’s book used and quoted a book by J. H. Allen, Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright, first published in 1917.’ In fact Armstrong’s book does not quote from Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright. Because it gives no reference to the book or it’s author. It does however use large parts of the text of the book in (in some parts only slightly) rewritten form which, as has been documented by many legitimate sources (many to be found on the Internet and many in print) amounts to plagiarism.

I have no time myself to correct the article. Unless this article is improved to give a balanced view of Herbert W Armstrong and his position as a controversial figure I will request that the article be deleted. Pos777 23:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violations are not grounds for deletion. I understand and respect your opinion, especially given some of the quotes I've read in Raising the Ruins, but the article needs to serve the truth of Armstrong -- not either side. If you have reliable sources to add, please post them here, and we can save you the trouble of figuring out how to word them for the article.--SarekOfVulcan 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

A note to Pos77: Before I started editing this article on the 29th August, it was even worse than what you described. There was no mention of Judah’s Sceptre and Joseph’s Birthright whatsoever and the article was basically a hagiography of Armstrong. I was the one who added the sentence on Allen's book. I found a source which mentions that he "quoted" from the book. See Orr's paper. I used that milder wording because at the time, there was an edit war going on with a certain user who insisted on removing any criticism of Armstrong. I did not want to be drawn into an edit war. Since then, this user is no longer being disruptive and the article has moved toward a balanced view. As for the stronger claim of plagiarism, there is a footnote in Orr's paper that says,

"Armstrong’s dependence on Allen is more evident in his later work, The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy. Though Allen is never mentioned in that text, the book so tightly follows Allen that the plagiarism is obvious."

This statement could be worked into the article because we can cite the source. However, it would be better if you know of another source that makes the claim of Armstrong's plagiarism. It would be best that it is a published (book) source rather than a website. --RelHistBuff 08:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to SarekOfVulcan: My concern is for unwitting people who may be being drawn into an offshoot organisation. This article should give all the facts in order for people to make an informed decision. Although I can see how it would be perhaps ‘unbalanced’ to present solely the popular (with good reason) negative view of him and his organisation. It is clear that the article, in making no mention of the existence of this controversy is a falsification of the truth and as such a rewrite of history. To use an extreme example it is analogous to an encyclopaedia article on Hitler without mentioning WW2 or the holocaust.

I have many books and articles (including five large binders of testimonies from various sites on the Internet) exposing the Armstrong empire with it’s hidden financial agenda and it’s cruel treatment of it’s membership, most of them written by people who worked beside him and where, for a time, taken in by his deceptive techniques. My family, you may have guessed, are survivors of this man and his poisonous teachings.

I plan to add a section to the Article entitled ‘Controversy’ where I will outline the nature of the accusations levelled at HWA and the WCG. I will give detailed references and sources.

While I don’t see the need to go into details such as Armstrong’s son’s revelation of his father committing incest with his 13 year old daughter, (which Herbert Armstrong, or his daughter never denied) I feel that the many thousands of embittered ex-followers of Armstrong should be acknowledged. It is testified all over the web how they were spiritually and financially abused by Herbert W Armstrong and his organisation.

Note to RelHistBuff: I commend you for doing that, I understand the difficulty you must have had and I applaud your efforts. As to another source testifying to Armstrong’s plagiarism of Allen’s book, I think perhaps the best to use is the following because it was made by a Pastor General of the World Wide Church of God:

“In fact, it is no secret that Herbert Armstrong’s The United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy was copied from a book titled Judah’s Scepter and Joseph’s Birthright by J.H. Allen.” Mr. Joseph Tkach Jr., successor to his father as Pastor General of the Worldwide Church of God, in Transformed by Truth.

However, precisely none of Armstrong’s doctrines were original, all were borrowed from other sources. I trust you’ve read the articles on this, particularly those on the Exit & Support Network’s site? (www.exitsupportnetwork.com) I plan to make reference to this in the section outlined above.

Pos777 13:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the source. I changed the text and added the cite. --RelHistBuff 22:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent - great that you got the chapter too. Pos777 02:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for myself, I felt that many of the "controversial" elements had to take a back seat to the basic bio information - as RelHistBuff stated, it took quite a bit of work just to get those in here without argument! (Read this entire discussion page for examples.) There is a lot of hearsay and allegation on any topic concerning Herbert Armstrong, some of it comes with excellent backing and proof, some of it does not. Plus, many of those elements I can think of seem to me to be better suited for the Worldwide Church of God and Armstrongism pages than a biography. However (again, speaking for myself only), if you'd like to post a basic list outlining your planned "Controversy" section, I imagine a number of us working together could help flesh it together. There are enough potential sources floating about to make that a very fascinating reality. That is, if you're interested in seeing a balanced, factual article as a result, not one that only serves and agrees with one POV. - jere71.203.211.107 15:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. As the article stands now it is not truly representative of the subject, because it presents a somewhat one sided view. Adding more of the controversy surrounding Armstrong, all factual and verifiable of course, would simply enrich the article. I’m working on it at present and will of course post it here first for all concerned to work on it. Pos777 05:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I disagree with the merge proposal just proposed by User:Warlordjohncarter. Assyria-Germany connection should not be merged with this article. If everyone agrees, then I will remove the merge proposal from the article page. --RelHistBuff 19:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree as well. As I understand it, this is part of British Israelism, which is not an Armstrong-exclusive theory.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree as well. We might do well to remember it for a later period, as it might be good to network all the entries out there for various HWA teachings, but I think it'd be out of place on this page atm. - jere71.203.211.107 22:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• I also disagree, it's a theory not exclusively supported by Armstrong. — EliasAlucard|Talk 19:11 31 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with it. Exclusivity to an idea is no grounds to not include this information.

Natural selection was not entirely exclusive to Darwin, yet to have it go unmentioned in an encyclopaedia article would obviously do a gross disservice to its subject.

None of Armstrong’s doctrines were exclusive to Armstrong (I can give detailed and accurate references to this. Doctrine by doctrine.) – although he certainly tried to give a strong impression that they were. Therefore to give a balanced view of the subject, surely a listing of his doctrines together with their original sources would prove an interesting addition to the page. And this proposal would be a start to this. Just an idea ;-) Pos777 05:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately I would point out the article for Charles Taze Russell as a model for how this article should look. Note the "theology and teachings" and "controversy" sections at the end of Russell's article. YOu know what? I've got a little free time right now, I'll post a basic version in a little while for you guys to chew on. - jere71.203.211.107 03:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Theology & Teachings section

Okay guys, using the article on Charles Taze Russell as a guideline, I've written up a list of stuff I thought would go well in such a section. I'm out of time for tonight and didn't get to finish sourcing. So here's an unsourced list for you guys to go cite-happy on - between all of us we ought to be able to come up with something useful. Once we've got that in place we can better shore up a "Criticisms and Controversy" section. I apologize for the length, we can delete this from this page once we've all worked our magic on it. I did work on the principle of "too much is better than not enough", so we can shorten and move a lot of these around for space concerns if need be. - jere71.203.211.107 05:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(Proposed section removed after posting) - jere71.203.211.107 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This looks good to me. Jeb, are you still watching this page? How's it look to you?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sourcing and updating this list while I wait for more to comment on it. Of course, I can always use more sourcing, so if you guys are doing the same thing I would rather have overlapping refs than not enough. :) - jere71.203.211.107 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be a good addition to the article. I agree with your using the article on Charles Taze Russell as a model. The article would sincerely welcome a 'Criticisms and Controversies' section, to which I hope you will bring the same spirit of comprehensiveness. Pos777 05:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Should be posted after this weekend, I updated a couple of points and am checking a couple of extra refs. I'm a little worried what the Wikipedia notes will look like with all these ref points but we can clean and organize that after the fact. - jere71.203.211.107 (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, guys, I posted a new draft of the "Theology & Teachings section" - which isn't 100% complete but I felt was close enough for the time being. There will, no doubt, be over-admirers of Herbert Armstrong wanting to argue some of them, but I tried to stick to stuff that was well-documented. The "Criticisms and Controversy" piece will follow in a later section. - jere71.203.211.107 (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I make a suggestion here that the heading 'Reaching out to the world' be changed as it carries a certain ambiguity that does not lend well. I would suggest 'International Expansion'. Any ideas or objections? Pos777 05:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that heading is actually a holdover from this article's "hagiography" stage, I see no reason not to change it. :) - jere71.203.211.107 (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I suspected, I'm glad that the page has been transformed. Anyone not in favour of this change? Pos777 (talk) 02:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Criticisms & Controversy Section

New Framework for Criticism and Controversy Section

Armstrong and his teachings have been an ongoing source of significant controversy. This should be brought to light as part of a balanced presentation of his person and influence. The intent of this section is to provide a framework for these issues. I must ask that those that contribute to this section will limit themselves to constructive edits and references only. If you are pro-Armstrong and therefore in disagreement with the idea of controversy, or trying to suppress any mention of controversy, then please be so kind as to respect the reality that there are others that would disagree with you. Please keep all edits concise and to the point, and use references wherever possible.

I had started this section on this page and invited participation from other watchers. It appears, however, that this page is dead at this point in time so I am going to post it, so edits will have to happen on the main page.Waitingwatch (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Attempt:

Okay, folks, here's my first draft. Keep in mind this one is harder to write than the "Theology..." part. When dealing with the negatives you have to wade through a lot of hearsay that just isn't easy to source, and I tried to stick to things that were easy to verify or at least find reference to for this first draft. jere71.203.211.107 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

(Proposed section starts below)

• Orthodox Christians tended to view Armstrong and his followers as promoting "grace by works" or "Galatianizing the gospel" by adding rules and requirements to it. Armstrong himself often stated that orthodox Christianity was centered on a "gospel ABOUT Christ", as opposed to "the gospel Christ preached", and that this teaching had been lost for 1,900 years until he began to proclaim it. Armstrong's tendency to present himself as the source of most of the Church's teachings resulted in many writers labeling his Worldwide Church of God as a personality cult. Armstrongism, that is, the set of beliefs taught by Herbert Armstrong, has sometimes been labeled as polytheistic since it rejects the Trinity but holds both "God the Father" and Jesus Christ to be separate individuals in a "God Family". Orthodox Christianity often finds Armstrong's teaching that "God is reproducing Himself" to be blasphemous.

I'm a past contributor who now has a little time to contribute once again; I (and others) have searched hard and found no concrete evidence supporting the criminal charges. I am biases--and that bias is based on proof and familiarity with the teachings and literature, and the history and substance of the criticisms and accusations, and who the accusors were. This includes his critics accusations of plagiarism against Armstrong--the Church that supports his legacy has a strong article dispelling the specific tenets of the plagiarism charges). I hold the position (and have argued in detail on this) that the non-doctrinal controversy has been, dare I say, tabloid quality in nature, based on old hearsay never proved in court despite the criminal nature of the charges--often laughed out of court, and in general the controversy originates and or is inflamed by his status as an autocratic religious leader whose beliefs clash harshly with traditional Christianity, and are inflamed but not effectively researched by a mainstream media which has a well documented secular bias at best, and at times an open hostility toward "Bible thumpers". The hearsay is always traced to 1) The new evangelistic WCG's propaganda publication, and websites substantively uninterested in scholarship, 2) disgruntled ministers who disagreed with doctrines, and 3) excommunicated members who make it patently obvious they have axes to grind either with doctrine or Armstrong's unapologetic intolerance for internal dissent concerning doctrine. For this reason, no one will do better than to get an occasional quote from a mainstream source which lazily cites the accusations, but does not even begin to explore the credibility, present proof, nor distinguishes fact from opinion in quotations.

No statement in the bullet point has been shown incorrect by your comment. Every point in the proposed paragraph is quite true and in fact describes Armstrongism in relation to the rest of Christianity, adding good shape and shading to the picture. We would all love to remove all criticism and engage in a little history revision for ourselves. However it would not be beneficial to users of Wikipedia, who we all must think about when editing this article. The controversy mentioned above is what made Armstrongism what it was, different to the mainstream. As such I don't understand why you would seek to hide that these criticisms were levelled, understandably, by more orthodox Christianity? Pos777 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

_____________

Concerning the charge from religious groups that he espoused salvation through works, wherever he wrote about salvation, I've found that he consistently used almost this exact phrasing to describe the teaching: "Salvation cannot be earned: it is a free, unmerited GIFT from God, one cannot earn it with law keeping. All have sinned and "earned" the death penalty. But the prerequisite for the receipt of the unearned gift is believing in Christ's sacrifice, and obedience to God's law." He taught that keeping the ten commandments brought about every desired blessing in life, and was fundamental for God's plan to create Utopia and so on. He caused a stir by using quotations from Paul and Jesus in support this view and, frankly, was famous for eliminating seeming contradictions in the new Testament teachings--especially concerning the role of the law in salvation, and providing relief from confusing teachings of traditional churches. This misunderstanding by other churches towards his teaching seems unnecessary, even normal due diligence would hardly have been necessary to dispel that perception; but I do realize he certainly taught views that created religious enemies among religious leaders--he literally taught "traditional Christianity" is/was a false religion, "deceiving the world".

The cult of personality issue, and the idea that he stated that the church's beliefs mainly came from him, are important issues that are delicate for this article to deal with in maintaining NPOV.

Are you aware that Armstrong took every doctrine he made from another source? If you are not then this is proof that he wished to hide this fact and never gave references to sources as is customary in scholarly writing. The 'God Family' to give just one instance came from Mormonism - if you need a source for this consult the Mormon literature. Armstrong was also a avid reader of religious literature and would incorporate any idea that he felt would spin his 'Tangled web' as alluded to by David Robinson. By the way I am not a disfellowshipped ex member, nor do I bear any personal grudge beyond the deep betrayal I felt at finding the truth behind my spiritual guide and his church. I, like you, took the opinion at first that these, what seemed so callus and obviously fake allegations must have been made by people who had some personal grudge against Mr Armstrong. After filling Five huge binders with research and reading lots of books they now don't seem cruel or callous at all. but perfectly justified. Pos777 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the "tendency to present himself as the source of most of the Church's teachings" and the cult label, the former issue is pretty cut and dry, the latter issue (the cult tag from other religious groups)is a vast, complicated subject in of itself. As for his characteristic way of presenting the origin of the WCG's teachings under his reign, Armstrong referred to himself as having restored, over time, to the church 18 doctrines, and yet he also extensively wrote about what he felt he could authoritatively document were the doctrines and beliefs of the Church had before he came along, and had kept throughout the centuries, according to his and his assistant's (Dr. Herman Hoeh) interpretation of the somewhat scant but surprising historical records concerning various European Sabbath keeping groups. He wrote about this extensively, in particular in his autobiography, the major doctrine book Mystery of the Ages, his Bible correspondence course, and The True History of the True Church booklet. Basically, these groups kept the Seventh Day, rejected infant baptism and the Trinity, regarded the Holy Spirit as the power of God available to Christians, the primacy of the Ten Commandments, and usually there was evidence of these groups keeping the Holy Days of Lev 23, though the Seventh Day Church of 1927 had "lost" that knowledge.

Regarding the 'Cult Label' Dr. Robert J. Lifton's Eight Criteria of Thought Reform commonly found in Cult organisations centred around an autocratic personality were all found to be present in the WCG, it’s structure and it's teachings.

http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studymindctr/study_mindctr_lifton.htm

http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/lifton.htm

http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/marks.htm Pos777 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

During the hagiography stage of this article, I wrote a paragraph concerning this (which fit logically within the narrative of Armstrong's history with the Church of God (Seventh Day) of the Oregon Conference). Their research on various Sabbath keeping groups historical connections to the Church of God Seventh Day was relatively impressive, and the passage I wrote was thoroughly cited--not from Armstrong's writings but directly from authorities Armstrong cited, such as the legendary Fred Coneybeeare. The passage was encyclopedic in tone--always using tone suggesting these were his interpretation of real historical connections and similarities that could neither be definitively proved or disproved, as the groups in question have few records of their own left for historians to examine. The passage was removed in late August or early September.

You make a sharp observation when you draw attention to the fact that the perception of a cult of personality will automatically result from a perception that the beliefs of the Church came almost exclusively from him. Without the passage on the basic beliefs the Church held before he came along, he looks more like a cult figure; that passage was deleted without discussion or explanation about three months ago (as mentioned it was beautifully cited and fair and professional in tone)--by whom I don't know or care to know--and perhaps that tends to fit with the pattern of the article swinging from one extreme to another--from the September 2007 version's tabloid style without citations and strong appearance of being a platform for religion bashing, to a relative hagiography, back towards removing "positive" accomplishments and traits that had been put in to the September 2006 version to cover up the POV and compensate for the ubiquitous negativity and myopia of that version.

Jebbrady (talk) 06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

But you cannot disagree that Armstrong preached that the WCG was the ‘One True Church’ and under his specific guidance. And that he gave not a single reference to his sources in his writings. The plagiarism charge may have been avoided if he had given references to his sources. It’s scholarly practice to include references, but Armstrong’s writings had few scholars as their target readership. Armstrong purposefully gave the impression that he was being passed the information from a higher source. And he was very successful, for a while. Pos777 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Armstrong and his ministers' continual writings in regard to "Bible prophecy" earned many critics when many statements simply failed to come true. Up until the mid-seventies, church writings often pinpointed years or time periods in which certain events would happen; many of these did not occur. In the entire history of the Worldwide Church of God, Armstrong had claimed at various points that the U.S. would be soundly defeated in World War II, that Adolf Hitler had not died and was planning to reappear to conquer the world, that Jerusalem would be a Gentile city until the return of Christ, and that various U.S. presidential elections would be the last one before the country was destroyed.

The current article is problematic as far as NPOV, because he has actually been and is increasingly famous for accurately forecasting the occurrence of geopolitical events. These only draw much attention because few if any commentators at the time foresaw them. Three months ago, at the beginning of this process of transitioning the article, an editor tried to balance the passage in this article referring to him being wrong with predictions by putting in one well known, major forecast he had made beginning in the 1930's and beyond that was in fact accurate, and strikingly unusual. He predicted the coming of a United States of Europe--a prediction made before the European Cole and Steel Community formed--along with an attendant prediction in the 1970's and 80's that the Soviet Union would soon lose it's eastern satellites who would then join the EU, without a nuclear war ever occurring between the U.S. and Soviet Union. This brief passage was well cited, with links and footnotes, and written in NPOV tone. It was removed within a couple days without discussion. That's water under the bridge now as far as I'm concerned, but it needs to be dealt with.

Jebbrady (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

So if we are to believe, like you seem to be suggesting, that Armstrong was getting these predictions from some supernatural source. Why would this source misinform him with regard to predictions such as these:

"...the year 1936 will see the end of the Times of the Gentiles.... we may expect the present worldwide depression, time of trouble and fear of war to continue until the year 1936!... quickly after that time, we may expect to see the heavenly signs of the sun and moon becoming dark, the stars falling.... which shall be followed by the 'Day of the Lord."' (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, June-July 1934, p. 5.)

"Mussolini and the pope will hatch up an idea between [them] of setting up a world headquarters at Jerusalem-and so Mussolini's armies will enter into Palestine (Daniel 11:41), and eventually will capture just half of the city of Jerusalem! (Zechariah 14:2)." (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, March 1938, p. 8.)

"Mussolini will fight Christ!" (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, Jan. 1939, p. 4.)

"Once world war is resumed, it must continue on thru the great Tribulation, the heavenly signs, the plagues of the Day of the Lord, and to the Second Coming of Christ, at the last battle, at Armageddon!... But this you may know! This war will be ended by Christ's return! And war may start within six weeks! We are just that near Christ's coming!" (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, Aug. 1939, p. 6.)

I would be genuinely interested to know how you justify this? In the light of his many crashing failed predictions it surely makes more sense that the few predictions he got right where merely informed projections from reading the relevant journals of the time. Of course he wanted to give the strong impression that he was informed from above in exactly the same way that he gave the impression that the whole British Isrealism thing was his idea. He certainly gave no clues to the membership about the origins of that and many other theories. Leaving members to draw their own false conclusions. Pos777 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• British Israelism, which had been popular in several forms in decades preceding Armstrong, was adapted by him to create a prophetic message for his church. Because of its legacy in promoting racial and/or national superiority, it continued to be a disputed subject, as well as one for which there is little scientific support or consensus. Armstrong's version of the theory bears similarity to that of Richard Brothers, and his book The United States And Britain In Prophecy is similar enough to the earlier J.H. Allen's Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright that it is often attested to be "copied", "paraphrased" or "plagiarized" from it.

This charge was thoroughly dismantled, piece by piece, in an article written by a WCG offshoot group called the Philadelphia Church of God. I can likely obtain the article upon request. They now own the copyrights to The United States and Britain in Prophecy. Again, this group has expressed the goal of eventually weighing in on this article if need be. They have tremendous access to articles and they're own research for us to use, and they're publications represent a secondary source for us, not original research--with journalistic standards that are extremely high. They're flagship magazine The Trumpet (www.thetrumpet.com) is a well researched, respected source of analysis of world news, enough so that non-religious folks read it.

The charge of plagiarism, as with the other criticism and charges, simply cannot be referred to without the evidence against it, and it's problematic and questionable whether these weak charges which seem to exist solely for quantitative effect are worthy of mentioning at all. But when it comes to the final product--the controversy section--as long as the best information available has the floor, without the attempt to suppress solid, autobiographical information which I've seen in three instances since August (on 3 different aspects of the article), we can find a quick resolution to all of this, and the PCG need not be called upon to weigh in on the discussion page.

I'll add this; on another discussion page, I respectfully challenged someone, who posted the charge of plagiarism, to show side by side two passages that demonstrated plagiarism and, despite the fact he had originally spoken as if he owned the book book by Allen, he never responded, and it wasn't surprising. His criticisms of Armstrong were of the vitriolic kind we often see: long on emotion, short on information and cold reason.

Please see the table below for side by side passages that demonstrate the plagiarism. Pos777 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• During the later portion of his life, Armstrong had a reputation for "opulence". His use of a private jet, ornate decoration of the church's Ambassador Auditorium, presentations of Steuben crystal (Steuben Glass Works) to heads of state, and a number of other perceived excesses often led outsiders and insiders alike to question him or the church on how income was being spent. This would culminate in the State of California placing the Worldwide Church of God in investigative financial receivership in 1979.

Again, this is delicate. It is fair to include in the controversy section, but with the counter from his defenders who do not see decadence in his behavior despite the top quality possessions he took on when the income of the church skyrocketed beyond TV publishing costs.

People are on the lookout for religious charlatans--there have been many in the news. I have argued, and will continue to argue, that a religious leader is either sincere, or is a charlatan, there is no inbetween. Wikipedia ultimately has to treat Armstrong one way or the other, or be incredibly and deliberately inclusive all all counter arguments against his critics. We have seen in the past with other religious leaders in the U.S. that they really are charlatans who don't practice what they preach, but take people's money quite gladly, thank you very much. With Armstrong, Wikipedia needs to look at the whole picture, and paint such a picture clearly if it was the case for him. Covering this issue in a way that creates the appearance that innuendo is present in the tone of the article is of course unacceptable for an encyclopedia: either the man was a charlatan and Wikipedia must deal with it, or he was sincere in his beleifs, and sincerely felt opulence at that stage of his life was permissible or even purposeful.

That being said, please note 5 major issues and teaching that form the context: He worked long past retirement instead of cashing in (he worked up until his death at 94); 2) He spent 28 years leading the Church in virtual poverty, as can be attested to by members and tax records; and 3) During the years of poverty, he consistently preached that wealth was not wrong in of itself, but obedience had to come first, and pointed out that many of the great men of the bible became very wealthy (Job, Abraham, Joseph of Egypt, Joesph of Arimethea; Jacob, etc)Thus h wrote articles and did sermons explaining that the idea that God was against the rich was a misconception. 4) He always taught that God wants us to have quality things after we obey--that Christ's garment was seamless and valuable to the Romans soldiers, and that eventually our lives should reflect that God blesses obedience with physical abundance, citing III John: 1-3 etc...) and 5) He made the college campus very opulent (winning "best landscaped" college twice)long before the church was swimming in money, long before he upgraded his own living standards-this was done to reflect the beauty, dignity, economic glory, and "hope" of the "World Tomorrow"--to help create the vision of it to inspire outsiders, and motivate the student and members.

People may associate the characterization of "opulance" by critics with decadence, but any reference to these charges would have to include how "his defenders" counter by pointing out that he wasn't exactly decadent in living: he worked 16 hour days, and six day workweeks, without legitimate vacations, for over fifty years before he died, after having worked thirty years past the normal retirement age at that time, 64, at which time he could have rolled around in the money the church was taking in, taking it easy and living fast and free. This charge, like the others, once the full picture comes to light, makes just seems shallow and silly.

07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I simply must comment on this.

"WCG attorneys have filed a suit against Ramona [Armstrong] in the U.S. district court in Tucson. They allege she has over $400,000 worth of church property in her possession that she refuses to return. The property, they claim, is owned by the church and was intended solely to furnish HWA's Tucson residence.” [He owned five large residences] Pasadena Star-News, Sept. 3, 1982

Would you agree that in even by today's prices $400,000 dollars worth of furnishings would be described as opulent or "lavish" for a single residence? This was not property to be used by the church, but for Mr Armstrong and his wife's use. This kind of money could have gone a long way towards getting the message out.When you consider that throughout his ministry Mr Armstrong believed that Christ would return in 5 - 15 years time it would seem of UTMOST URGENCY that every penny he could lay his hands on went into the work. This is what he required of the church members.

Throughout church history ‘Co-Workers’ would receive what amounted to begging letters to cover some financial crisis the church was perpetually in. In the 60’s and 70’s this was mostly to do with building projects. At one point Armstrong encouraged co workers to borrow money from the bank in order to donate it to building funds and regularly solicited ‘widows mites’ from the poor.

"THIS IS GOD'S WORK---WE CANNOT LET IF FAIL! Let's AROUSE OURSELVES!" “The entire work is in dire need. SEND IN YOUR WIDOWS' MITES, all you who are unable to send more. DON'T think it won't help---when there are enough of them, these small amounts COUNT UP." (Co-Worker letter, May 22nd, 1953)

In the mean time he was not to be found like such as Ghandi, living within bare means so that all the money went to these projects, but he was wining and dining Ambassador students on golden cutlery once owned by the Tzar of Russia! (there is or was video evidence of this on youtube.) Pos777 (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Allegations have been made in various sources that Armstrong forced his second daughter, Dorothy, to have sex with him during a ten-year period until her marriage to Vern Mattson. Herbert Armstrong, Garner Ted Armstrong, and the current leadership of the Worldwide Church of God all refused to publically discuss the allegations. The misconduct reportedly was brought up in Armstrong's divorce court proceedings.

This one has never been brought beyond the tabloid level, as alluded to in my intro. This is a charge of truly bizarre act of immorality of the highest magnitude, and the fact the rumor exists is truly bizarre in many ways. If we need to, we can bring in the Philadelphia Church of God to weigh in on this subject--they own his copyrighted materials and have expressed a desire to weigh in on this debate. I believe they have access to court documents and other useful materials. I've noticed an incongruous but partially interconnected pattern: Armstrong did things that people admired (world leaders wrote letters to the Church when he died expressing such sentiments--see Raising the Ruins), he had enemies due to his autocratic governance and prickly religious views, and lastly he was accused, during and after the period of the power struggles of the 1970's, of an escalating series of offenses culminating in the extreme obscenity of this would be offense. These criticisms and charges were never proved, but made up for it in quantity, and were sensationalist enough to draw sufficient attention, and seem to still have hurt his reputation, as they are recycled without research or respectable proof by the media and (some)Wikipdedia editors. He we wrote that it was "reportedly" discussed in court, would look like we would be reaching to cram that charge in there, and if it definitely was discussed in court, what does that mean? Hearsay is in fact discussed in court-why were charges not brought? Where is the proof for us to cite in an article. Again, is there anything here worthy of Wikipedia?

What makes this charge truly bizarre and immediately suspicious to people who have read his literature, is that he not only taught that there are serious consequences for breaking the Ten Commandments and to immorality, but because he dramatically hindered the mass appeal of his message --and the growth of the church--by braking the evangelistic "just as you are" mold of modern Christianity in teaching and arguing vigorously that 'Grace' does not "do away with the Mosaic Law (a law which held the crime in question to be a capital crime). The charge more incongruous when we consider that the reader of Armstrong's literature can see how he actually used every bit of personal experience, logic, psychology, passion and persuasion he could muster to convince readers that keeping the Ten Commandments was the only way to real happiness now, in this lifetime, to solve world problems, and to reach "the incredible human potential" (the Gospel he preached), and argued with amazing eloquence, philosophical poise, and passion to demonstrate those benefits, explicating the cause and effect of keeping these laws.

Jebbrady (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Well exactly. You use the word incongruous, but it would be closer to reality to use hypercritical. It is shocking to discover the reality behind the mask of someone you respect and honour so much. This is why sites like The Painful Truth (http://www.hwarmstrong.com) and The Exit & Support Network (http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com) exist. Have you read the Gerringer Letter? (http://www.hwarmstrong.com/ar/Gerringer.html)

Please see my note beneath the table at the bottom of the page regarding the incest allegations. Pos777 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Another common allegation was that the church's charitable organization, the Ambassador International Cultural Foundation, was a front organization used merely to gain access to high offices. This was likely a reaction to the Jim Jones/Guyana incident.

There is a quote somewhere that critics were up in arms about, Armstrong said that since forming AICF he could make approaches without having the 'embarrassment' of mentioning the Church or Jesus. This obviously conflics with certain scripture. Pos777 03:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

He spoke in these foreign countries with political and common business leaders because it was chance to fulfill "The Great Commission" given to the New Testament church, which he felt his office was most responsible to fulfill. This was based on the Bible, the two key scriptures he constantly touted being Rev 10:10-11, Matt 24:14, "preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom around the world before many peoples and Kings.") With that in mind, it becomes more plain that such a charge by his critics is not worthy of our limited space or an encyclopedia in general because it is woefully out of context at best, and silly at worst. In other words, of course he wanted to get access to those leaders! So the question is his motives, and, and it's clear that his daily activities and writings all revolved around fulfilling Matt 24:14, even long past retirement age into his mid nineties. Regardless of the motives, the critics here take a relatively irrelevant issue (saying he not strategically used the humanitarian projects to gain access to world leaders), attempt to spin it to create a negative impression, and tackle the issue completely out of context, once again suggesting a lack of honesty.

This is another example of an extreme reach by his critics: throwing out a criticism or charge lacking substance or proof in order to contribute to the tally of a vast quantity of criticisms also lacking substance and proof, using quantity to make up for quality, successfully creating air of controversy surrounding him--that's my best interpretation.

Lastly, the political leaders had little to gain from him that anyone can discern: roughly half were in no need of money for campaing contributions for electioneering, as they were not elected, the humnatarian projects not on a scale in any country out of perhaps a dozen that could compare to the vast state funds and resources these leaders has at their disposal, nor was the church even popular in those countries--there were less than 150,000 members worldwide at the peak.

Apparently, they either just liked how he did things, or what he had to say, or some combination.

Jebbrady (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I’m sorry Jebbrady, but you are still under a well-cast illusion. Reading inside accounts from people close to him it becomes clear that Armstrong bought his way into these meetings in order to have the photos of his hand shakes splashed across the Plain Truth and the TV programs. He barely said a word to these powerful people he met. He just allowed the implication to form that he was spreading his message to the powerful of the world. Who were these photos meant to impress? The membership! They had, since the early Seventies, suffered major upheaval and massive exodus due to the failure of 1975 in prophesy and the promise of Petra. (Which since the war had been Armstrong’s main message and recruiting tool.) Not to mention the sexual indiscretions, expulsion and re-admittance of Garner Ted. Armstrong now needed an angle other than his dogmatic predictions to hold the membership in sway. What do advertising men do? Get endorsements from famous people. The membership were fed the idea which you outline above, but this was not the truth. If you want evidence (Other than in writing, which strangely seems to become inadmissible to the faithful.) Then look at what was achieved in the world by Armstrong’s hand shaking tours. What changed? Did Armstrong himself ever disclose what was said at these meetings? I’m from the UK and some papers carried pictures of Armstrong shaking hands with Prince Charles. However, apart from hello, nothing else was said and Charles moved to the next man not knowing even who Armstrong was! However, the photo was in the can! To the membership it looked like their leader had had talks with Prince Charles. How important! Now Prince Charles ‘knows’. Yet he knew of nothing. You see Armstrong was too clever to lie. He just allowed people to lead themselves up their own path. If you believe what I have just written to be false then I am afraid you are still walking that path.Pos777 03:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Worldwide Church of God's management structure (often accoladed as "a type of God's government" by Armstrong and his ministers) was hierarchial, with Armstrong himself retaining near-absolute authority over church operations and doctrine. This centralized arrangement, with few or no procedures operating as checks and balances, has been widely reported to have been both abusive and fostering an authoritarian environment in which local and regional church leaders sometimes went beyond their perceived duties to retain control of or otherwise dominate members. As the Church had no constitution or other basic codification of its doctrines for most of its existence, individual interpretation by a lower authority figure in the Church hierarchy often affected the membership in certain areas. Sometimes Armstrong would intervene to remove "troublemakers" in the hierarchy himself.
• The Worldwide Church of God did not have an open-door policy. The World Tomorrow radio and television program usually offered free literature to the public; a reader who contacted WCG about becoming a member would be "screened" and assessed by local ministers. Critics often stated that this was a blatant advertising hook (typically, the "bait and switch") and that the WCG's public profile was quite different from its internal beliefs. It was also frequently held that the prospective member screening process itself was a form of "brainwashing" or "conditioning".

Some of the above criticisms need to be explained more clearly--I can't make sense of them. But first, the screening was based on the scripture John 6:44 and others, and thus criticism of it is akin to religious discrimination. In other words, the church's overall beliefs were strictly biblical (whether people agreed with the interpretation or not is another matter); these beliefs included that only those called by God could come into the church in this age, and all others will be resurrected to their opportunity later. Thus, the ministry was trying to determine if the person was being "called", if their "mind had been opened" to accepting the Sabbath and the doctrines etc and if they could demonstrate an understanding of them. Bringing in dissenters was the opposite of what they thought the Bible clearly taught (Rom 16).

Actually, the fact that they screened people is what impressed most people about the process--they weren't just looking for as many new members as possible to gather tithes or donations, which many people have been commonly exposed to. People also tended to be impressed that they got the literature for free with no follow up solicitations. Second, Armstrong actually preached it was "dangerous knowledge' and that bringing people in to be baptized made them eternally accountable for acting correctly on what they knew, while the rest of the unconverted world is "not yet judged". Thus screening was consistent with church in several ways--they were protecting them and the church.

As far as bait and switch, I'm not sure I understand what they were using as bait, and what they were switching too--what were they gaining from people? The only discrepancy between the literature and internal teachings that this could possibly be referring to is that Armstrong, throughout the 70's had trouble getting portions of the ministry to preach the full doctrines as he had taught in the literature--that "Protestantism and Liberalism" were creeping into the church through the ministry. He investigated and kicked many of them out--hence the tremendous rivalry and bitterness to this day, and the origins of the vitriol. Some of the ministers managed to stick around as shown by Raising the Ruins, and they became the germination of the liberal, evangelistic transformation of the church when he died, and they continue to attack him.

The literature for the public was identical to that used within the church, save the Good News magazine, which was internal, and contained "meatier" messages beyond the "milk" of basic doctrine. I can find no discrepancy between the message given to the public and the church-it all revolved around the actual doctrines of the church.

09:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

This is false to the point of my suspecting you are actually involved in an offshoot church in a position other than member.

It is common knowledge and indisputable that the message given to the public through the World Tomorrow program and others was secular in nature and that the true religious nature of the organisation behind it was concealed. Only when people sent off for the literature did they begin to encounter the 'stronger meat' of church doctrine. You knowing that phrase indicates to me that you are purposefully giving a falsified view. It was the Armstrongs' strategy to appeal to people initially with no outward religious message, but with a secular message of finding a better life for themselves and their children in this chaotic world. Once they started sending off for the free, well produced and glossy literature they began to feel indebted. They were never asked for money, but eventually felt that they should contribute having received all that free literature. The tactic was brilliant and successful and is responsible for Armstrong having been called 'the greatest criminal mind of the 20th Century' (The Painful Truth). A view that is not my own incidentally. Pos777 (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• As a result of Armstrong's written belief on divine healing, members typically hesitated to utilize physicians for health issues. Some refused vaccinations for their children.

This is true. Followers continue to avoid vaccinations

Hope this was helpful. I know their is a fair amount of text in some sections, but these issues require that sometimes.

69.115.160.236 (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Please see my initial header at the top of this section. This is an encyclopedic article - the listing of "criticisms" was, quite literally, a list of criticisms appearing in verifiable sources that had been levied against Herbert Armstrong over the years. Our personal opinions ABOUT them are rather immaterial. Keep in mind it's also a "listing", meaning that we're listing them off in preparation to see if a substantial list develops that's actually worthy of posting - that's why it's not actually on the article page and won't be any time soon. However, watch for the second draft, I'm working on it as I type. - jere71.203.211.107 (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's my notes on the first draft's comments if anyone is interested:

"Salvation by works" - The way Herbert Armstrong (and later, Gerald Flurry) reconciled this was that by saying one had to be a "candidate" or to be "qualified" or "justified" by works to receive "salvation" (What Do You Mean... Salvation?, Which Day Is The Christian Sabbath?, The Incredible Human Potential, etc). Which apparently to orthodox observers was the same thing. Again, this is a listing of common criticisms levied. Whether or not the explanation makes sense to you or me is not important.

"Failed Prophecies" - I believe the EU prediction is still cited in other places in the article. The fact is that some of them still did not come true, and criticisms were levied as a result.

"British Israelism" - I don't know which article you're referring to as you didn't name it. Again, this is a charge brought up over and over again in multiple sources - hence why it made it into the list. It'll be sourced in the final version (I didn't want to mess up the discussion page with footnotes).

"Opulence" - Again, a much-levied charge that made its way into the first draft simply on pervasiveness. I tried to keep it "trimmed" for now, just noting that it was part of the receivership issue (though the new draft I'm putting together has a lengthier version noting the resolution of the receivership). Note that I clarified it somewhat by indicating this is a later charge (you likely won't find it in sources prior to 1970, for example), which you also noted in your "Point 2".

"Incest" - Once again, a very repeated charge - had it occurred in one source only, I'd have not included it. When it did occur it was treated in brief and in terms like "reportedly". Occasionally a source would attest it in such emotional terms that I didn't trust it at all, so I left all the supposed "details" out and stuck to the bones of the charge. Again, again, it's a much-raised charge, hence its inclusion in this draft. On the flip side, I disliked including that one simply because of the lack of proof (or refutation) - and the nature of the case would make it difficult to cement one way or the other. It's not exactly Paula Jones and Bill Clinton, if you know what I mean.

"Front organization" - This one seemed to occur frequently in late-seventies literature and then appeared more as a footnote in later sources. I went ahead and put it in for you guys to see if you can flesh that one out any further. I'll see if I can clarify it, but as many of the polemic sources on this topic tend to be more interested in "biblical refutations" of Armstrong's teachings, I don't have a "plan" in mind for that one.

"Government structure" - (laughing) That was an attempt by me to consolidate one of the major criticisms of Mike Feazell's book - although it's discussed in other sources, his devotes a lot of space to it. I don't really want to repeat some of the "abuse/horror stories" on the web on Wikipedia, as they're just personal perceptions, opinions and testimonies (I'm not saying they're not necessarily true, just that I'm wary of including them in an encyclopedic article because of their sourcing and content). So I kept it to a brief summary of the criticism.

"Screening" - The actual "screening" itself should probably be better detailed - I was rushing to include the frequent "bait and switch"/"public face/inner belief" criticism for public scrutiny.

(section ends here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.211.107 (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you express some good reasoning above. I do want to comment on one thing you said at the beginning, which was this: "Our personal opinions ABOUT them are rather immaterial." I may have allowed it to come off that way, but it wasn't a matter of expressing an opinion, but was a matter of laying out--perhaps clumsily in organization--an initial argument supported by facts as yet un-cited for lack of time, and responding to the old charges one by one, to make the case that there is in fact no large body of criticism of Amrstrong's personal character(I'm not referring to doctrine which is a separate issue, like the "open door policy") outside of his expensive car and living quarters when the church finally exploded in size. What we see, upon examining the facts without emotion or bias, is instead a well documented, easily traced small cadre of individuals--ex-ministers and ex-communicated members--with a well known, painfully obvious conflict of interest, who have fielded, after they were put out of the church, a large body of attacks listed above, that in every single case CRUMBLES beneath what are easily documented facts--some of which I've put forth already, with the apparent intent to damage the man's doctrinal credibility by smearing his personal reputation, and snatch away followers (Like the stated purpose for the Ambassador Report (Pasadena Star news, Jan 17, 1986) often to draw members directly to themselves personally, as in the case of the Tkaches and Garner Ted Armstrong, among others, or were--as shown in court in one instance--members pressed into such activity by ex-ministers like Garner Ted Armstrong. It's also interesting to note that the charges expanded to include every possible negative activity under the sun, and the reason is because each charge was so weak it required new charges of differing nature and often escalating seriousness. Yet, though seeing and distinguishing the quality and motivations of sources should be a major activity of editors and contributors in an encyclopedia, I conjecture here of course as for the ultimate motivations of the excommunicated ministers and members. The main issue is the total lack of factual substance and even logic to the charges. If the attacks had any substance against the light of inspection it would be entirely different. The knowledge and awareness of the credibility of these charges are surprisingly well known.

In other words,a myriad of ridiculous, illogical, discriminatory, unsubstantiated but often brutally savage personal attacks on a figure from one corner doesn't automatically deserve to be in an encyclopedia simply because they exist--imagine Britannica operating under such a principles and you will agree. And given that they all come from the same quarter, logic dictates that they all stand or fall together as a body--though dismantled by the facts separately--and should be treated as such. And again, if they had anything approaching substance, it would be different, despite the bias of the accusers. So then my position going forward is that Wikipedia, looking to maintain and increase it's credibility, must in some dignified,honest and fair way reflect that reality carefully, or else take on the strong appearance of being an embarrassing platform for religious discrimination and mudslinging, as these people left not because of personal abuse or because of the "controversies" which suddenly materialized after they left, but because they disagreed with Biblical issues and doctrine--and the article is not about doctrine or religion but an autobiography. This article had the aforementioned appearance in September of 2006, among other things, unfortunately, and I was shocked given the quality of other articles I'd used Wikipedia for.

Please don't think of this as something like an early "salvo" in a long debate. Just something I would like everyone to consider and keep in mind going forward. If anyone would like moire information to back up any specific claim I have made in responding to the bullet points, I will dig up source material as fast as I can.

"Those who are choose--or believe they are divinely chosen--to spread the message of monotheism in the world are bound to endure more than their share of vicissitudes...Herbert W. Armstrong was such a man."

(Pasadena Star-News, January 17, 1986)

69.115.160.236 (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Some specific thoughts (where I disagree) on your second group of bullet points:

• I said that they charges of plagiarism were completely disproved by an article I have access to. Your reply, as with other comments, was that the charge came form multiple quarters.

Please share some of the proof they provided, if they did at all. Any second hand source can say anything, but can they offer real proof that stands scrutiny?

Please see the table below for real proof. Pos777 (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You didn't express interest in seeing the article where the plagarism was disproved--you were probably in a hurry. If you include a charge in the article, their will be the balancing "defender's view" for each--it's inevitable. So ultimately we have to pick the charges to include in order to control the length. This charge is subject to proof, so it may not be that prickly I guess.

• Let's assume multiple sources is an indicator of worthiness for inclusion, regardless of the lack of substance. I'm aware that charges seemingly come from what one might technically call "multiple quarters": but it's secondhand charges taken up by ex-communicated members and ministers each of whom has there own website and sometimes their own offshoot or evangelist churches, with attendant publications, or simply by mainstream media sources which reported the charges but did not investigate them. That still takes us back to one general original source (ex-members), not multiple sources, and they are recycling the same secondhand charges.

Why are you intent on devaluing the testimony of ex-members? Wouldn’t they be amongst the best placed to give accurate testimony? The fact that the church carefully vetted every member should indicate to you that these people were good, honest people. We’re not talking about excommunicated Mafia here. Pos777 (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not whether you have the technical right according to Wikpedia rules to cite secondary sources who repeat and recycle the same slander--you do. Wikiepdia policy guidelines can't police source evaluation--we have to work that out amongst ourselves, or mention the sources in the article prominently, within the text/ narrative ("ex-communicated ministers accused HWA etc". It can be said to be a question of editorial ethics and honesty.

• Concerning "failed prophecies", my response is similar. When I contributed to balancing the article last year, I deliberately left out the issue of prophecy altogether, because there are upwards of ten unexpected world developments he forecasted or prophesied, including the total collapse of the dollar (more on that later) coinciding with the rise of Europe (.i.e the Euro replacing the dollar as reserve currency, EU Federalization etc), and that America, a world superpower, had won it's last war in 1945. I can list them later.

It’s interesting that you maintain here that Armstrong was a prophet or one making prophesies, it has become the norm that Armstrong followers deny that he claimed to make prophesies. In the light of his many crashing failed predictions (e.g. "Mussolini will fight Christ!" (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, Jan. 1939, p. 4.) it surely indicates that the (upwards of) ten predictions you mention where merely informed projections from reading the relevant journals of the time. If we are to believe that he was making predictions from some power greater than this then we would expect that power to remain accurate with regards to predictions and statements in the nature of:

"… a revolution in the weather-leading to unprecedented famine by around 1970-72 is prophesied. In its wake is prophesied frightful disease epidemics! A third of the people of the U.S. and British Commonwealth nations will die of this scourge." (The Plain Truth. Herbert Armstrong, Feb. 1962, pp. 5, 7.)

"The 'Day of the Eternal'-a time foretold in more than thirty prophecies-is going to strike between 5 and 10 years from now!... I am not writing foolishly, but very soberly, on authority of the living Christ!" (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, Feb. 1967, p. 47.)

"We do not set dates!... Yet in our human zeal and enthusiasm for getting this greatest mission on earth done, we have a few times come close to it or appeared to-and that we deeply regret...if we...appear to set a date, I feel I do not need to apologize!" (Tomorrow's World, Herbert Armstrong, Feb. 1972, p. 31.) Pos777 (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, "The salvation by works" issue is incredibly esoteric, to the point where you accidentally used terminology in describing H.W. Armstrong's and Gerald Flurry's position on it which they would have immediately seen as the opposite of biblical--not what their position is, but what their critics say it is. Therefore put it in, but Armstrong's succinct, crystal clear explanation has to be quoted in that section. I'll have to dig it up.

Jebbrady (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Jeb, I'm sorry, but your continued blaming of "ex-communicated members and ministers" is tiresome and is simply not true. Not every source I used in the initial draft came from someone who is now or had once been part of Armstrong's group. Not everything comes from some "cadre" out to ruin Herbert Armstrong, or ex-members who decided they don't like what's "Biblical". Don't paint the sources when you don't know what they are yet. I know (on a personal view) that Joseph Tkach and Mike Feazell put out some books that are quite annoying to read due to their whiny, squirmy writing style, but those are just two of the higher-profile ones and I didn't stick to them when compiling the list. :) In fact, I'm adding more and more as I go - I'm hoping that by the time this section gets published it'll be close to having more citation numbers than sentences and the big concern will be trimming out the excessive citations. Heh. :) And if you're wondering, so far I have refused to use Ambassador Report for any of them. I could go the easy route and do that, but I don't want to at this point. There were a few things I could have added to the list, but as their only citation was AR, I left them out for the time being.

As for the bullet points, before I go any further, I suggest you check out the article on Charles Taze Russell, the structure for which caused me to suggest expanding this article with its "teachings" and "criticisms" section. Note the format the "criticisms" section exists in, where each charge is presented along with its counterpoint and aftermath (if any). That's ultimately where this is going to go, or at least that's what I want to see. Once we all nail down what stays in the draft and what goes you'll see em get fleshed out a little better, or at least that's my hope and wish. Obviously it won't be tomorrow, but...

As for the bulleted responses (man we got lots of bullets around here, heh) -

• USBIP - I thought you were going to retrieve the article and tell me the name... the only one I know of resembling what you mentioned is a short PCG piece that was later inserted into Raising The Ruins. I'm hoping the article you're thinking of is much more in-depth than that piece. Let me know.
• Failed prophecies - I actually see your point behind the point if that makes any sense. Let me think about that one for a little bit. Do we agree that the prophecies (or perception of them) fits as a valid entry in the Criticisms section?
• Salvation by works - Not sure what terminology you refer to. Let me give you some quick examples...

"The parables show that the convert who does not grow in Spirit and character development will lose out...He thought he was 'already saved.' He said he didn't believe in salvation by 'works.' What he didn't realize is that while salvation is a free gift, we are rewarded according to our works (Matt. 16:27)..." (HW Armstrong, The Incredible Human Potential, (New York: Everest House, 1978), p. 85) "Thus did God reveal which day in HIS SABBATH, and also that it DOES MAKE LIFE-AND-DEATH DIFFERENCE--for to break God's Holy Sabbath is SIN, and the penalty of sin, and cause loss of salvation" (Armstrong, Which Day Is the Christian Sabbath?, p. 35) "Of course, salvation can't be obtained by works. But you don't even become a candidate without works!" (Flurry, Malachi's Message)

Now, please note my original first draft on the topic - "Orthodox Christians tended to view Armstrong and his followers as promoting "grace by works" or "Galatianizing the gospel" by adding rules and requirements to it." (First off, I boo-boo'd, it should be "salvation by works" and I've already corrected it in the second draft, no worries!) We're not talking ex-members here. That charge pops up repeatedly in outside literature referring to the Worldwide Church of God (typically, the "biblical refutation" works I mentioned). Whether the teaching in question is "Biblical" or not is not a concern for Wikipedia. He taught X, the mainstream said "Isn't that...?", that's as far as it goes. I don't see a need to spend too much text on what's essentially a doctrinal disputation. We're not here to "sell" Armstrong or the Baptist church down the street. The disputation existed, that should be enough...

More later, I know this is a long and arduous process, but it'll be worth it in the end. :) - Jere71.203.211.107 (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, guys, if you've got anything to ADD to the list (which, as I stated above, is where I'm at right now - add what can be cited first, then start removing the less important or most unwieldy ones), please say so. I don't think I made that point clearly when I began this part. Pos named "divorce and remarriage". Any others? - jere71.203.211.107 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps the biggest controversy in the church's history was the failure of the events described in ‘1975 In Prophesy’ to come true. The booklet makes very specific predictions as regards the fate of the church membership, the United States and of the ‘End of the Age’. The membership expected to be taken to a ‘place of safety’, presumed to be Petra in Jordan, to await the coming of Christ. When 1975 came and went many thousands of the membership, including many ministers became disillusioned with Armstrong and the church and left the organisation. This could possibly be included in your failed prophesies bullet or given it's own one.Pos777 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong also expounded certain controversial extra-biblical theories, such as those devised by Dr Herman Hoeh (Who received his doctorate from Armstrong’s Ambassador College), to predict the second coming of Christ in 1972. These concerned a numerological interpretation of the "writing on the wall" in the book of Daniel and a theory involving "nineteen-year time cycles", both of which indicated that the year of Christ's coming would be 1972.

Perhaps the most interesting criticism for readers of the article may be the comprehensively documented and analysed use of Thought Reform and Mind Control techniques used by Armstrong during recruitment and initiation phases and throughout the organisation in general. Dr. Robert J. Lifton's Eight Criteria of Thought Reform were all found to be present in the organisation, it’s structure and it's teachings.

http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studymindctr/study_mindctr_lifton.htm

http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/lifton.htm

http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/marks.htm

Side Note. Further evidence of thought reform can be found in the almost mechanically unwavering faith demonstrated in Armstrong by a dwindling number of the original membership. Despite his being discredited by the failure of his own pronouncements. It is now Twenty years since the death of Armstrong yet throughout his long preaching career, beginning in 1931, he stated with dogmatic certainty that Christ would return in 5 to 15 years:

"The 'Day of the Eternal'-a time foretold in more than thirty prophecies-is going to strike between 5 and 10 years from now!... I am not writing foolishly, but very soberly, on authority of the living Christ!" (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, Feb. 1967, p. 47.)

According to Deuteronomy.18:22, because Armstrong spoke in the name of the Lord of something that did not come to pass, this statement designates Armstrong a false prophet:

‘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’. And Deuteronomy.18:20 of course describes even worse implications.

Because his followers must ignore or circumvent certain scripture to maintain faith in Armstrong it is quite clear that his was indeed a personality cult. Pos777 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good grief...

Jeb, I'm glad you came back, because we need your perspective on this article. That being said, though, could you _please_ learn to write concisely? It's getting to the point where I just kind of drift over everything you write, because it rambles so much that it's painful to read.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 20:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, this is a single sentence: "What we see, upon examining the facts without emotion or bias, is instead a well documented, easily traced small cadre of individuals--ex-ministers and ex-communicated members--with a well known, painfully obvious conflict of interest, who have fielded, after they were put out of the church, a large body of attacks listed above, that in every single case CRUMBLES beneath what are easily documented facts--some of which I've put forth already, with the apparent intent to damage the man's doctrinal credibility by smearing his personal reputation, and snatch away followers (Like the stated purpose for the Ambassador Report (Pasadena Star news, Jan 17, 1986) often to draw members directly to themselves personally, as in the case of the Tkaches and Garner Ted Armstrong, among others, or were--as shown in court in one instance--members pressed into such activity by ex-ministers like Garner Ted Armstrong." Not good.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll do my best. My perspective makes it harder to be concise, because I have the responsibility of bringing a lot of information to the table. Anyway, at one time people could listen to Lincoln and Douglas debate for 2 1/2 hours, so I know you can hack it--but I'll do my best. Jebbrady (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated. Thanks.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that I promised to be concise, you're going to change the embarrassing Charlie Brown title to this post now, right? This could be a deal breaker for me. Jebbrady (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

*grin* Not a chance. If I have to put up with your style, you have to put up with mine. :-)--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 06:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The bulleted points in the ‘Proposed Criticisms & Controversy Section’ above (written by jere if I can make it out!) are I think excellent and very fluidly written. They represent an unbiased view and deftly state the actual criticisms and controversies mentioned. My only criticism is that several important points are missed out which I’m sure will be rectified in due course.

Jebbrady, while I understand your frustration at the existence of these criticisms and controversies, I feel you are constrained in your judgement by your unquestioning faith in Armstrong and Armstrongism and it would be most amiss to omit them from the encyclopaedia on the grounds of faith.

I would like to see jere’s rhetorical skills brought to bear on the criticism widely levelled at Armstrong for his treatment of members with regards to the rigid divorce and remarriage doctrine. (For anyone who doesn’t know, many marriages were split up as a result of this doctrine over the years. Yet the doctrine was changed due to ‘new truth’ and later Armstrong married Ramona Martin, a divorced woman and later was to divorce her. Pos777 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Jebbrady and other Armstrong devotees seem to be under the illusion that the plagiarisation by Armstrong of Judah's Sceptre & Joseph's Birthright is unfounded and they ask for citations. I would suggest getting hold of a copy of both books and reading it for yourselves. There was some on ebay a while back. I can offer these examples below in the meantime:

Herbert W. Armstrong's 1967 US & BC in Prophecy	Rev. J.H. Allen's 1902,1917 Judah's Sceptre & Joseph's Birthright
The name Jew is derived from, or rather is a corruption of, the name Judah.... Hence it is that the names Jew and Jews are applied only to the people who composed the kingdom of Judah (p. 66).	Remember that the term "Jew" is merely a nickname for "Judah." Hence, it applies to only to the one nation, or House of Judah ONLY (p. 80).
But the great bulk of Israelites are not the Jews, just as the great bulk of Americans are not Californians, and yet all Californians are Americans (p. 71).	Jews are Israelites, just as Californians are Americans. But MOST Israelites are not Jews, just as most Americans are not Californians (p. 82).
Called as the prophet of God; ... and set by the Divine One "over the nations, and over the kingdoms." What! Surely he was not set over all the nations... He now calls Jeremiah a "Prophet unto the nations," i.e. the "two nations," the "two kingdoms," the two houses--Israel and Judah (p. 108).	Notice, Jeremiah was set over NATIONS -- more than one kingdom... He was set a prophet over Judah -- but not Judah alone. Over nations -- over kingdoms!.... Jeremiah was set over not just one nation, Judah -- but over NATIONS. Over the kingdoms -- the Kingdom of Israel as well as Judah! (pp. 95-96).

Pos777 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The incest allegations where first made in David Robinson’s book ‘Herbert Armstrong’s Tangled Web’ 1980.

The Armstrong organization, through surrogates, attempted to use the courts to block distribution of the Robinson book, but failed miserably (Ambassador Report, Sept. 1980). It is most remarkable, however, that in attempting to block distribution of the Robinson book, never once was it asserted that the incest allegation was untrue. Nor did Dorothy Mattson, HWA's younger daughter, ever come forth to deny the incest story (and she has repeatedly refused to respond to queries from the Report regarding the matter). In spite of all this, it seems there are still some who prefer to believe that the incest story was fabricated. Let us briefly review the facts…(http://www.ondoctrine.com/1armsh01.htm.) Pos777 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the link, but as it wasn't sourced in any way I don't know if I can use it. "Dorothy said", "Ramona said", all without references... However, there is this clip from an article on the Armstrongs' divorce trial. Tulsa World Newspaper, May 17 1984 -

""During pre-trial proceedings in the divorce case, Thursday, Sherrill agreed to limit testimony on Armstrong's sexual conduct but to allow evidence on the finances of the Pasadena, Calif. Based church.

"In the divorce proceedings, Armstrong's lawyers had sought to limit evidence of a sexual nature but his wife's attorneys said it was crucial since the church leader alleged Mrs. Armstrong had breached and agreement of love and fidelity.

"Louis Deckler, Mrs. Armstrong's lawyer, said the testimony would explain an "understanding" the couple reached about Armstrong's "prior incestuous conduct with his daughter for many years."

"Citing Armstrong's worldwide travel in a $17 million private jet and other examples of a "luxurious lifestyle." Deckler contended the other side was trying to exclude evidence showing "the vast wealth that Mr. Armstrong personally controls to his own benefit."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.47.181.172 (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that's probably the best evidence you could pin down regarding such a matter. If no incest took place, it would be so easy for Armstrong to sue anyone who alluded to it. The fact that a lawyer is alluding to it here seems strong testimony. David Robinson would never have escaped prosecution for it's initial publication if Armstrong could prove no incest took place. All it would have taken is a written denial from Dorothy herself. Pos777 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a 'Quotes' section? Some interesting Armstrong Quotes for possible inclusion follow. Of course there should be some quotes interspersed that actually came true! Maybe Jebraddy could provide these?

"...the year 1936 will see the end of the Times of the Gentiles.... we may expect the present worldwide depression, time of trouble and fear of war to continue until the year 1936!... quickly after that time, we may expect to see the heavenly signs of the sun and moon becoming dark, the stars falling.... which shall be followed by the 'Day of the Lord."' (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, June-July 1934, p. 5.)

"Mussolini and the pope will hatch up an idea between [them] of setting up a world headquarters at Jerusalem-and so Mussolini's armies will enter into Palestine (Daniel 11:41), and eventually will capture just half of the city of Jerusalem! (Zechariah 14:2)." (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, March 1938, p. 8.)

"Mussolini will fight Christ!" (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, Jan. 1939, p. 4.)

"Once world war is resumed, it must continue on thru the great Tribulation, the heavenly signs, the plagues of the Day of the Lord, and to the Second Coming of Christ, at the last battle, at Armageddon!... But this you may know! This war will be ended by Christ's return! And war may start within six weeks! We are just that near Christ's coming!" (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, Aug. 1939, p. 6.) Pos777 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"But Hitler (or his successor if there is one), and the False Prophet shall fight against Christ!" (The Plain Truth, Herbert Armstrong, March-April 1943, p. 6.)

I'm new to this discussion, and reading some of the things here, including the table above, I went looking for what evidence I could find on both sides. I found this site very interesting http://www.cogwriter.com/hwaacc.htm because the author acknowledges the accusations that he can find evidence for, but throws out others, especially the incest charges. I think what he has to say is worth careful consideration as it is clearly done in a spirit of wanting the truth... take a look. :) Red hothead (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Verboseness

Ok, Pos777, your turn. How about quieting down for a bit and letting someone else say something? If you fill this up with repetitive claims, nobody's going to want to read this after a while. Jere made his suggestions, Jebbrady responded, and you responded to Jeb. Now let's see what comes out of it. Jere, thoughts?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

'Repetitive claims'? I just answered each point in turn as I felt each point deserved response. If you've got nothing to add, don't fill up the page rebuking people who are contributing. END OF SILLINESS Pos777 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, repetitive. Count the number of "Mussolini will fight Christ!" quotes. If you have suggestions for article text, by all means make them, but talk pages are for discussing the articles, not their subjects. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 19:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I promised an end to silliness, but I just counted them and the only one not fair and relevant to this debate on the article’s proposed content or representative of a content proposal is yours. I guess I’m new here, maybe I’m treading on a few toes, but I was attempting to defend the inclusion of the proposed section by countering Jeb's heartfelt objections with some of my own hard-won observations.Pos777 (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the rephrasing. I have no doubt that they are indeed hard-won and accurate. I'm just saying that it's much easier to understand your point when it's made concisely. If you and Jeb respond at equal length and equal abstruseness, nobody's going to take anything away from it.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 15:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your right. I appear to have killed it stone dead! :-) Come on guys! :-) Pos777 (talk) 04:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)