Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
▼
Saturday, October 14, 2017
Ian Boyne: "Stout defense of Armstrongism from Jamaica"
I attach my Last Great Day message delivered in Ocho Rios Jamaica to approximately 400 brethren gathered at the largest Feast site in the Caribbean and one of the largest in the world. Our Kingston congregation is one of the fastest growing of all COG groups in the world and is by far the largest of all Armstrongite groups in the Caribbean, averaging over 200 on any given Sabbath. On Atonement we had 250 in attendance. Among those who heard this Last Great Day message were American brethren on a CEM cruise who had traveled over an hour to join us for worship. It was a most delightful experience! The Americans stayed back after services to have a meal with their local brethren. We had a wonderful song by Karen Clarke of Eugene, Oregon, daughter of one of HWA's earliest ordained ministers, Bryce Clark, a former district superintendent.
I spoke relevantly to the crisis which faces Armstrongism today: widespread knowledge online about our history of massive corruption, abuse of power, religiosity with little spirituality, atrophied growth, profound disillusionment etc.
I had been keeping up with my usual daily reading of your site, Gary, and had noted what was said about the boring, repetitive and lifeless sermons at the Feast. I myself can, sadly, confirm that, as every day after services I surveyed at least eight different Feast sites, which shall remain nameless.
I spoke on the nook of Jeremiah and noted that Jeremiah faced our exact crisis, with a leadership that had become corrupt, deeply sinful and arrogant about it. But I said the answer for Jeremiah was not to reject Torah or the religion of those who had become corrupt. It was not to then accept the religion of the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Egyptians.
It was to be true to the faith.Similarly, I encouraged the brethren that today we should not reject Armstrongism because of the corruption of the Armstrongs (of course I did not use that offensive term. That's only for the "strong meat" people on this site!)
I even mentioned Byker Bob's comment that after he left in 1975 he went out and partied. I mentioned others who had become atheists. I spoke about those well-known ministers like Albert Portune, David Jon Hill, Al Carrozzo, Gary Arvidson and Robert Kuhn and Lester Grabbe who had left because of our corruption. The sermon received an amazingly positive reaction from the independent COG members from that CEM cruise. Many of them could relate to the disillusionment and deep hurt I spoke about. One man said it was the best Last Great Day sermon he had heard (which probably says more about the quality of those sermons rather than mine!)
Our service ran nearly three hours with much praise and worship music. I had warned the Americans about this before which is probably why not everybody left the cruise to join us, including its only minister. Those who came knew what to expect. I only spoke for about forty five minutes though. I didn't want to push my luck!
I wanted every American to get the message. Listen to it and tear it apart here. I am eager to hear the response of my favourite and favoured participant on this blog, Byker Bob who is usually so insightful.
NOTE: I will not post racist comments directed towards Ian or those in Jamaica. I have deleted things like this in the past and will still do so. Ian invites your criticism, so criticize away, but be civil.
Personally, I do not see any reason for keeping Armstrongism alive, BUT, I did agree with your statements toward the end about "justice" in the church and how it should treat people. Justice in the church was almost nonexistent at times. Treatment of HQ employees by administrators who were evangelists and ministers was appalling. Worldly companies would never have treated employees in such a manner. That mistreatment trickled down through the ministry to the brethren. Justice, grace, and mercy was anathema in the church and still is today in many of the larger legalistic groups who have taken things to the extreme.
Why waste time trying to reform Armstrongism? Just join the 7th Day Sabbath Churches of God if your so inclined.
Ian, as Jesus said "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit."
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" ...and Armstrongism is the bad fruit.
What is it Ian that drives you to boldly go against the words of Jesus? If I was a COGER, my first thought would be that you have a demon.
So Ian, what is it? Do you have a demon or are you just spitting in the face of your Savior for personal benefit? Do you have crafty plans to restart a movement where you are the controlling leader?
I recall Ron Dart talking openly in a sermon after the Garner Ted catastrophe that truly converted members have to walk away from Armstrongisim but take the truth of scripture with them. whilst acknowledging the past is a courageous act I would think it wiser for Ian Boyne to draw a line and try and move forward. The LGD sermon should be about the glorious future God has in store not crying over already split milk and the character flaws of dead sleeping men. I speak as an ex CGI member.
what do u mean u will not post racist comments? are u saying ur followers tend to post racist comments? and you asked me earlier why i choose to remain anon? one reason is so i wont be subject to such perjorative behavior what seems to be an itegral part of the character of the anti coger...
indeed bigotry is part of the fabric of at least one of ur followers if u would make such a comment, and given the degrading name calling and otherwise attempts at humiliation what seem to be a hallmark of the anti coger, i would say that is par for the course for those what are quite naturally in the wrong...
Anon @ 12:32 wrote: "what do u mean u will not post racist comments? are u saying ur followers tend to post racist comments?"
There is one person who sends things that are beneath contempt and filled with such hate and rage that I will not post them. Is that person you? If not, then you have nothing to worry about.
Being in business, I get around amongst the so-called upper, middle, and lower classes of the socio-economic scale. As a general rule, I've watched the instances of racist comment and racist treatment of people decline over the past twenty years. Unfortunately, there is a small handful of hardcore people who have not grown on a par with societal evolution, and these people are still hateful and continue to make hateful remarks. I separate myself from those hardcore types the minute I'm sure of their bad character, both because their attitudes and comments hurt my fellow humans, but also because they hate the people (me) of their own ethnicity who refuse to hate people of other races.
My message to these people is that you cannot restrict or narrowcast the character flaw known as hatred if it's in your heart. Sooner or later, you'll find an excuse to be mean-spirited to everybody. Learning to treat people outside of our own WCG group differently has subliminally taught church members to make distinctions and to direct hateful behavior towards each other. And for some, obviously, the hatred has been intensified as if it were a virtue, rather than attacked and overcome.
Eh, I wouldnt say its declined over the past twenty years, unless you're referring to overt, organized racism only. Most expressions of that did go undercover for a few decades. That said, they seem to be coming out of hibernation lately, mainly among those too stupid to realize theyre being fed a load of shit. Theres some "new converts" among that lot, but theres also a number of people that were just too cowardly to say anything prior.
I hate to hear that that stuff is surfacing again. The worst that ever made it to me was people automatically calling my Hispanic wife "Maria" instead of taking the time to learn her real name.
Mr. Boyne, Are you asking us to stay with the people of God even in the midst of outright corruption, lies and sins to no end from the leadership and ministry? To stay and not say anything makes one a hypocrite. The bible states that all hypocrites go into the lack of fire. To say something gets that person branded a heretic and one that causes division. That person is quickly cut off from the people of God. There is no choice per se for this way of life. It is a calling from God and when recognized as a calling from God it is acted upon. The truth is the only thing that will keep one truly in this way of life. You have correctly recognized the conditions of the COG's. The only solution I see is to wait for Christ's return to put back together His Body.
I've listened to part one of Ians presentation. The idea that those who stop attending church services have fallen away is outrageous. This is the same lie that other churches such as the Catholic church teach its members. According to my bible, salvation is through Jesus Christ rather than church attendance. A Christian is one who follows Christ rather than attends Ian's services.
Relationships with individuals or a group is not a end in itself. Rather it is a means to the end of enriching ones life. If a environment becomes toxic, the pro life thing to do is to flee that environment.
To me it's like working out. If the weight is too light, there is little muscle development. If the weight is too great, torn muscles will result. So there should ONLY be a degree of pressure in ones environment.
The holy spirit told me to be a stay at home Christian after my minister prisoned the mind of the church against me. My 'sin' was complaining about church crazies. So Ian's blanket 'don't stop coming to services or you end up in the lake of fire' is dishonest. Jeremiah s calling was special. Saying all members are Jeremiah's so they shouldn't stop coming to church is again intellectually dishonest.
Ian often and uncomfortably sounds a bit like Dave Pack in his biggest n best as well as monitoring how others are doing compared to himself. Just saying.
I would like to suggest that from a typological perspective Judaism = Armstrongism (= Laodiceanism).
Rev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
“To be "wretched" physically describes life when everything one owns has been destroyed or plundered by war (Ps 137:8 LXX). Here it refers to the Laodiceans’ spiritual destitution and pitiableness before God. “Poor, blind and naked” refers to the three sources of their miserable condition. “Lukewarmness,” then, does not refer to the laxity of Christians but the condition of not really knowing Christ as Savior and Lord and thus being useless to him...” (Alan F. Johnson, Revelation, EBC, Vol.12, p.458). (Laxity is too obvious to be the primary interpretation).
In regard to not knowing Christ’s gospel of the Kingdom this is the typology:
Judaism is based on the Old Testament while Armstrongism is based on the Old and New Testament.
Judaism has truth and error and Armstrongism has truth and error (probably more of the latter).
From the Old Testament, Israel the Kingdom was looking forward to the coming of the Messiah and His Kingdom. Israel the Kingdom was expecting to be ruling in an earthly Kingdom.
From the Old and New Testament, Israel the Church, is looking forward to the coming of the Messiah and His kingdom. Israel the Church is expecting to be ruling in an earthly Kingdom.
This is somewhat surprising since many in Armstrongism believe in British Israelism who perhaps should understand the principle of delegated authority:
"The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative in Australia of Australia's head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, who lives in the United Kingdom.” QEII was the first reigning monarch of Australia to visit Australia during her reign.
Before changes in constitutional law in 1927, King George V reigned as king in Australia. He reigned as king in Australia though he never visited the country.
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
The saints will also reign on the earth, but like George V in regard to Australia, they will not be on the earth.
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever...
The reason for the Millennial Temple is that Jesus Christ will also not be on the earth, but will provide a place for His ‘dwelling presence’ as did the Mosaic Tabernacle and Solomonic Temple.
2Ch 9:8 Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God: because thy God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee king over them, to do judgment and justice.
While Christ will not be on the earth He will have His representatives on the earth - compare the Governor-General - human Davidic kings will represent and rule for Him.
The Last Great Day pictures God coming to tabernacle/dwell on the earth (Rev 21:3, 25).
I had a list that I'd compiled (prior to watching Ian's video) of some of the negatives found in Armstrongism that, based on what members have shared here, have never been corrected in some or all of the ACOG groups. These are areas which would require attention if we were to attempt to reform Armstrongism.
1). Attachment to a single culture, and an attempt to impose that culture on all people of different cultures as a prerequisite to becoming members.
2) Hurting people from both outside and inside the groups; Searing peoples' consciences by teaching the withholding of the natural good aspects of human nature from outsiders, select insiders, and the offspring of church members. (Conditional love).
3). Concentration on the negatives of the surrounding world to the extent that it results in the destruction of many legitimate and wholesome aspects of life. This produces secession from life other than that experienced through the church. what comes from the church does not even come close to filling the vacuum which it creates, and leads to a morose and Kafkaesque existence, ie waiting for death or the tribulation. Sabbath services and collateral materials become an endless exercise in selling and reselling.
4). Obliteration of all learning channels other than the church and the "approved" version and interpretation of scripture and the extrabibilcal theories embraced by Herbert Armstrong. The truth is so many valuable lessons can actually be learned from today's culture, TV, the media, the internet, and prevalent hobbies and passtimes. Church Authority does not trust the members to select and learn their own lessons. it's all carefully controlled, and therfore lacks the personalization that true education requires.
5) Limiting natural spectrums (spectra?). Members must be conservative to the point of anal retentiveness, must gravitate personal tastes towards the 1% of the upper class; Dom Perignon as opposed to a simple thirst-quenching Budweiser (I'm having a Bud right now!), Handel rather than a toe tapping 3 chord song that you can hum and which relates to daily middle class life, pretentious attire which falls outside of one's own status and neighborhood.
6). Reciting one's church's official positions and opinions in everyday conversation, rather than anything original of one's own. This sounds one dimensional, and devoid of any sort of experience-based substance.
All of these, taken together, tend to make individuals cultic, and weird. If practiced as many of us did in the past, it makes us the last people anyone would look to as ambassadors of Christ. And they produce a joyless life
Ian Boyne wrote: " I spoke about those well-known ministers like Albert Portune, David Jon Hill, Al Carrozzo, Gary Arvidson and Robert Kuhn and Lester Grabbe who had left because of our corruption"
NOTE TO IAN- It is my understanding that Al Carrozzo and his family attend with the United group in Southern California.
"What can you do to ensure that you will make it back to the feast of tabernacles?"
Translation: What can you do to ensure you will keep depositing yer money into mah bank account?
Make sure not to ask any difficult questions that might lead to thinking for yourself, which might lead to realizing you're being had by folks like pastor Ian Boyne?
"But I said the answer for Jeremiah was not to reject Torah or the religion of those who had become corrupt. It was not to then accept the religion of the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Egyptians. It was to be true to the faith."
Maybe Jeremiah got it wrong. If Jeremiah had rejected Judaism, it does not follow that he would have then been forced to begin being true to a different set of unevidenced assumptions.
What made Jeremiah think that being true to one set of unevidenced assumptions was better than remaining true to another anyway? Maybe a better answer, at least a more defensible one, a more consistent one, would be to reject equally all unevidenced assumptions?
Obliteration of all learning channels other than the church and the "approved" version and interpretation of scripture and the extrabibilcal theories embraced by Herbert Armstrong.
This might not have been quite so bad 50 years ago, when there was no Internet and you could actually get some good information from your Plain Truth subscription despite the Armstrongist spin. Today, however, if you make Beyond Today or Tomorrow's World your main source of information, people around you will recognize you as a cultist of limited scope. It's one thing if you grew up in such an environment, but nowadays there are very few normal, balanced, not-insane people who would choose to give up the World Wide Web in favor of cult blinders. This is one of the main reasons why Armstrongism is dying.
3.41 PM The governor General of Australia is chosen by the Australian government, and is a purely ceremonial role. Do a Google search before you post such nonsense.
Cant fault you on that, Dennis. Often these types of sermons could invoke such an overblown pomposity in the speaker that it would become comedic... or insulting. To his credit, Mr. Boyne sounded interested in his topic, at least. I didnt see much stuffiness or aloofness in his speaking.
Mind you, I had to jog thru the clip; not going to sit through 30 min on a whim, but I watched overall maybe a third. So maybe I missed the stuffy, snobby moments. Someone willing to sit through the whole thing might have a better opinion.
The line about "if you can survive Church people you can survive anything" is an interesting twist, although I'm not 100% sure of Mr Boyne's intent behind saying that. Perhaps he would care to expand on that here?
"But I said the answer for Jeremiah was not to reject Torah or the religion of those who had become corrupt. It was not to then accept the religion of the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Egyptians. It was to be true to the faith. Similarly, I encouraged the brethren that today we should not reject Armstrongism because of the corruption of the Armstrongs"
If Ian Boyne wants to say that the answer for Jeremiah was to remain true to Judaism and not not to turn to the religion of the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Egyptians...
...then how does it make any sense whatsoever to suggest that "similarly" we should follow that example by doing something totally different: following a 20th-century American version of that late Greco-Roman bastardization of Judaism known as christianity?
Assuming Jeremiah got the right answer, and following that example is a good idea, then shouldn't he be recommending that we convert to Jeremiah's Judaism of 2500 years ago?
Assuming that Jeremiah were an historical figure and that he wrote any part of the book of Jeremiah, if we could go back in time and ask him, what would he think of a 21st century preacher using his writings to tell people not to forsake a religion he'd never heard of? Surely he'd be aghast at how violently his words were being anachronistically twisted so far out of their context and intent as to be completely unrecognizable.
It would even be more logical for Boyne to argue that Jamaicans should follow Jeremiah's example by "similarly" returning as well to their own traditional religious roots: obeah or pukumina.
As Dennis often says, and I concur, it's just another case of making the bible mean what it never meant.
I found Mr. Boyne's presentation to be dynamic, and succinct. By limiting himself to a 45 minute time period, Ian has avoided the common pitfall shared by most ACOG ministers of boring repetition and wasted words. In their form versus substance evaluation, if other Armstrongites around the world could sideline their superficial requirement for an HWA-style 1-1/2-2 hour sermon, and look rather at the content and effectiveness of a sermon, perhaps the movement would once again return to growth, and member retention. I also felt that Ian took the high road by concentrating upon the positive example of Jeremiah, rather than harping on the tribulation and the Lake of Fire. It is always encouraging to see balance.
The point was made that church brethren are more difficult to get along with than people in "the world". Although I agree with this, I also see a spiritual conflict here, native to Armstrongism. Armstrongism has always taught that the difference between the Old Covenant and the New was that under the New, the law is written within the hearts of those who are in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. The fruits of the Holy Spirit should therefore produce the reconciliation or restoration of relationships as Jesus taught. Fellow Christians in the hypothetical "true church" should therefore be much easier to get along with, than would be outsiders.
Jeremiah's daily living situation was different from that of an observant Christian caught in a hypothetical church that allegedly had the truth, but was governed by corrupt leaders whose lives somehow never embodied their own teaching. Jeremiah was a prophet who reported directly to God. His fellow priests may have been corrupt, but they were not in authority over him. In the old WCG, the leaders who were corrupt had positioned themselves "in charge". The insane ran the asylum.
I also disagree with the statement that "no one else understands the gospel". The founders of Armstrongism preached that Jesus Christ would return within our time (the ACOGs still say "in 3-5 years"). Their gospel supposedly was a warning to the world that we were on the event horizon to this. HWA always taught that "the world's" Christians made the gospel about the person of Jesus and denied the gospel that Jesus actually preached. The problem in that is, that Jesus Himself made the gospel about Himself. So, both the gospel of the coming Kingdom (except it's not to establish Armstrongism as God's government on earth for ever), and the gospel of Jesus dying on the cross to pay for all of man's past, present, and future sin debt for all time, are both equal parts of the gospel message. Teaching either one without the other is preaching just half a gospel.
Christianity is a form of individual expression of worship. That's the only way in which it can remain sincere, as opposed to being robotic and performed under duress. I don't believe any person or church has 100% truth, but so long as people are sincere, are not using their worship to hurt one another, are not worshipping demons or pagan gods, and are not making horrible sins (like temple prostitution or human sacrifice) part of their worship services, I believe all are covered by the blood of Christ, and will be in the Kingdom, whether it is in heaven or on earth. There is no one "special elite group". True Christians are found in all Christian churches, there are Christians who do not attend church, and there are also a heck of a lot of non-believers who practice Christian ethics. Ian does not appear to be teaching hurt, is not exploiting his members, and has not presumptuously taken Biblical titles for himself. So long as those conditions continue, and so long as there is goodness of the heart, it really doesn't matter to me what sabbath or holy days are used to express faith or worship, what foods his members eat, or mode of financial contribution for the members.
Hopefully everyone made the transition to see part II on youtube. Although I did not watch them, the sermons by the other Jamaican ministers are also posted there.
You can waste your time on that bullshit, if you want to. I'm not going to bother. I've heard it all before and Ian can go take a hike of a short pier somewhere.
Some left because of the corruption, some left all such groups because they were simply poorly educated preachers who were teaching false doctrines. I recall Ron Dart saying, after he left GTA, that just because the messenger is corrupt doesn't mean that the message is corrupt. True, but it can mean that both the messenger and the message were corrupt.
Thanks ,Connie ,you are right.I meant to indicate that Al was a major part of the 1974 revolt and that he was out of the movement for a long time. I had read from the person who did that excellent expose on HWA for Ambassador Watch that Al had,indeed ,returned and was attending with United.Thanks for making this clear. Ian Boyne
Hi 3:41, thanks for the comment. Even if I disliked a poster’s comment I would try, human nature to the contrary, not to describe it as nonsense - (Pr 15:1).
I am well aware of the present role of the Governor-General as I live in Australia and have some knowledge of the country’s political workings, supplemented, of-course, by Google. And that is why I chose my words carefully due to the limit on the number of characters allowed for a single post - note the use of “represents”/”representatives”.
In regard to the “purely” ceremonial role of the Governor-General, the late former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam would tend to disagree as he was dismissed from office by the GG, and was replaced by the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser - under the GG’s constitutional powers.
Eze 46:7b The house of Israel will never again defile my holy name—neither they nor their kings—by their prostitution and the lifeless idols of their kings at their high places.(NIV). Eze 46:18 Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession: that my people be not scattered every man from his possession. (AV).
The Governor-General in colonial days would be a better analogy to use for the ‘power’ to be exercised by future human Davidic kings. (Cp. also the ‘powers’ of the governors in colonial America) - in a good sense of-course.
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
BTW, how do you see the above Scriptures? I would suggest that they picture the priestly role of the heavenly Melchisedec king-priests in the temple in heaven during the Millennium. (It can’t be the time of the “eternal state, as it appears there is no temple ‘structure’ at that time (Rev 21:22) - the setting appears to be after coming out of “great tribulation”; God will not be on the earth during the Millennium so it can’t be Ezekiel’s temple.
Byker Bob, thank you for commenting that "there are also a heck of a lot of non-believers who practice Christian ethics."
Poet Miller Williams called such people "secular christians," with the lower-case "c" indicating that they are generic, white label christians, not any particular brand of Christian. They can no longer subscribe to the supernatural parts of the religion but find no fault with the moral framework. Sometimes I call myself a secular christian and cite as my credo the two commandments Williams mentioned: 1) Never take up more than one parking place. 2) Always be kind to drunks.
This pair is facetious in form but serious in intent. If we see that it begs to be generalized as "don't arrogate to yourself more than your share of things" and "try to help people when they mess up," we realize it is a paraphrase of the Golden Rule.
10.51 The governor general dismissing the Whitlam government was a abberation and highly controversial. Your position on the millennium seems to parallel the Jehovah's Witness position of the 144000 reigning from heaven with some lower caste immortals reigning on earth. This is not a JW blog.
HWAs church was and still is basically morally left wing. I say basically since the churches position on abortion and national self defence is considered right wing. Left wing rejects cause and effect (HWA gave lip service to it only) and its ownership by need that's taught by the churches give way. It's left wing Christianity. Which is also why the boring, hot air, Mickey mouse sermons.
Ian's implied 'you qualify for the kingdom by tolerating the abuse in the church' is a old self serving line pushed by the ministry. So much for peoples right to be left alone and be free from abuse. That people can build character by developing their talents such as educating themselves, is conveniently hidden away.
Non believers who practice Christian ethics is misleading. Such people exist, which leads some to conclude that people can be moral without being a Christian. What this point of view leaves out is that these non believers are the beneficiary's of the Christian moral cultural atmosphere. When a society turns its back on God, there is a moral decline, but it can extend over generations. So the old Christian influence is still there. These atheist Christians are free loading on the coat tails of genuine Christians.
It reminds me of the old 1980s movie 'Alien Nation' where the alien remarks that Americans are moral but not religious. It's not really true.
Morality, ethics, and religion are three completely different things, 1:26. That is why I carefully chose the word "ethics".
However, there have been intelligent cultures throughout history in which higher levels of both ethics and morality have been deduced, just based on pragmatism and/or produces superior results. There have always been inherently bad acts which are recognized as producing harmful results, and therefore are made illegal and avoided. There is a Latin phrase for inherently bad acts, mala in se.
Many of the founders of our country were Christian, but many were also deists and free-thinkers. They wanted the thirteen colonies to become a better nation than the places they and the earlier colonists had come from. Of course, both Catholic and Protestant Christians were an influence in this process, but they were not the only influence.
Thanks for the reply 11:43. I am not a JW and I would have thought my non-de-plume “Yes and No to HWA” would suggest my WCG background.
As, I hope you will appreciate, I was quoting from the prospective part of the retro-prospective telescopic prophecy of Revelation 7, which deals with the “great multitude”; which implies that 144,000 and the great multitude will be in heaven during the Millennium - Christ and the Saints are going to replace Satan and the demons in the heavenlies (Eph 6:12; cp. 1:3, 20;2:6; 3:10) - their kingly role.
BTW you did not answer my question on the interpretation of Rev 7:14-15 - concerning their priestly role.
I do not believe that “some lower caste immortals” will be reigning on the earth. In my post I have mentioned human Davidic kings ruling for Christ which implies that the earth will be populated by human beings, and there descendants, left over from “great tribulation”.
Eze 45:17 And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation [“atonement,” (NIV)] for the house of Israel.
(Blood is required for atonement].
Eze 40:39 And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.
Eze 44:27 And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.
I quoted 40:39 as “trespass” offerings are not “public” sacrifices as in 45:17; and 44:27 as in the quote below “ritual impurity” was not included, but which I have added in square brackets:
"It is evident from these lists that in Ezekiel's new order sin [and ritual impurity] will continue to be a problem for the nation. As he had done through Moses, however, through this prophet Yahweh reveals his magnanimous provision for forgiveness and fellowship with him" (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., General Editor, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT), (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), pp.659-60).
Ac 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Jesus Christ is going to restore the kingdom to Israel and this prophecy for the Millennium - “Behold, the days come” (Jer 33:14); “In those days” (33:15) - will be fulfilled:
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Helen Wheels rocks the haus: ...then how does it make any sense whatsoever to suggest that "similarly" we should follow that example by doing something totally different: following a 20th-century American version of that late Greco-Roman bastardization of Judaism known as Christianity?
RSK God has hard wired the ten commandments into the human brain. Which is why He holds gentile nations like Indonesia accountable for their national sins. The 'to whom much is given, much is expected' means that God holds the Christian bible nations to a higher standard.
Indonesia is one of the first nations HWA got an open door from the CIA in the special ops program to have the non-alligned nations within the Capitalist fold.
The Indonesian dictator got the green light by the CIA to assaninate a million communists and HWA was one of the first to establish renewed ties with that pivotal and strategic South East Asian Nation covering the "Five Eyes" Anglo Saxon member state of Australia.
So please shut up if you know anything about God and Indonesia. Why don't they put the word "the" before CIA? Because you don't do that with "the" God?
See also "The Year of Living Dangerously", with Mel Gibson and Sigourney Weaver. It is set during the 1965-66 Indonesian purge mentioned by nck.
Seeing that film was a very memorable experience. I had known very little about Indonesia prior to that, other than President Sukarno's name. My girlfriend at the time and I saw it during a So Cal rainstorm, in an old 50 cent movie theatre in San Dimas, CA. The roof was leaking like a small water fall, and we were bundled up and lacing our jumbo Cokes from my sportsman's flask of Cuervo. We had gotten there in her ancient Toyota which blew up several weeks later. Sometimes the best times you can have are when you have nothing!
The Mayans throwing hundreds of human sacrifice offerings from the steps of their temples were just trying to restore balance to the universe in an ethical way by offering precious items.
Excellent addition BB. I was watching, the wobbly "The Good Shepperd" to understand Ian, his neck of the woods and the relevance of BI at one time for the US intelligence establishment.
Excellent flick to understand nick. (both movies) Even if Matt Damon forgot to mention radio swan.
The reason that people give for doing evil, and their real motives are two different things. So the 'good reasons' that the Mayans and Aztecs gave for human sacrifice should be taken with a grain of salt.
I was being wry. In hopes of surviving the end of the world, WCG members sacrificed all sorts of things they probably shouldnt have. Guess what, no one ended up in a place of safety after sacrificing their wallets, jobs, marriages, children, health, et cetera. Perhaps we did evil unto ourselves... willingly. What do we then make of our good intentions?
Many have called me deluded for my continuous pressing of positives. My message is that TODAY you, we, ARE living in the place of safety, depending on ones perspective and of course if one has managed to not live in LASC or Chicago suburbs.
For the rest we are fine........unless of course you are part of the white middle class being wiped out by..... "the unseen hand" of unregulated free market economy.
It is all in the eye of the beholder, unless....... of course.
Nck Your unseen puppet masters together with a unregulated free market are a contradiction. Only a command economy or crony capitalism can have your unseen hand. Please be consistent. Have you been drinking Ian's Jamaican rum?
I don't mind hearing about conspiracy theories. Mostly they're not true, to be sure, but just the off-chance that there could be a kernel of truth to it means I'd rather have at least heard of it, than not heard of it.
Of course, hearing about it doesn't mean I accept it. For that, I'd have to have evidence, and the more outlandish the tale, the better the evidence would need to be to outweigh its prior improbability. So until then, all Nck's crazy ideas have to stay out in the bin of eminently dismissable ideas. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The thing the bothers me about Nck is how he so obviously believes so many outlandish conspiracy theories. And the thing about conspiracy theories is that, like religions, they exist in the unfalsifiable domains where there is never going to be any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, so I know he hasn't accepted them for any better reason than simple human bias and credulousness—terrible reasons to accept any idea.
Worse, as Anon2:24PM points out, his sheer biases lead him to simultaneously accept even ideas that cannot both be true, so internal consistency is not even a barrier that would cause Nck to dismiss an idea. Consequently, I'm not willing to read anything he says anymore.
Literally, the only thing I can think of to say in Nck's defense is that, well, unfortunately, he's not that unusual. He's not alone in failing to learn what to do and not do with his mental faculties.
A lot of what nck presents is factual or at least based on fact. I've researched much of it out.
He believes that HWA was correct in his diplomacy (for purely secular reasons), and accomplished permanent good of which the rest of us are unaware because we got caught up in HWA's sleight of hand, which was the church "masquerade" that messed up everyones' lives. And, he seems to have an eidetic memory for all of the secular activities of HWA. At times, I've wondered if he was actually Dr. Robert Kuhn, although I am certain Dr. Kuhn has better things to do with his time.
My problem with that is that even if nck's opinion were reality, it all ends up that the crap we all went through, and the exploitation and deprivation, financed HWA's reinvention of himself as ambassador without portfolio.
I don't mind being charitable or doing good. I just like it to be based on an honest and heart-felt personal decision, not because some "philanthropist" ripped me off. HWA still comes off as the heavy. Now, maybe if the AICF had booked Led Zeppelin to play the Ambassador Auditorium with the proceeds going to the Sierra Club...........
A nice read. I suggest not writing too lengthy articles, for it exposes your lack of knowledge of the facts and theory. For instance where you quote 2:24 who obviously does not understand the economic theory of the "invisible hand" and the "unseen hand" of other disciplines.
Helen I was discussing 2 movies. Then you spout some nonsense about me not getting the facts straight without offering any suggestion as to why an american religious entrepreneur focussed on anglo saxon bi theory would visit the leader of a strategic American ally in the South Pacific. Excuse me. I have to dismiss anything you write from now on. Especially in the light of this weeks released special opps files from the Reagan years. You obviously never read Stanley Raders pledge of loyalty to the Philipine junta's reform program of property rights and WCG support of it on the largest military base of that nation. etc etc etc The prime minister of the 2nd economy of the world making some time for wcg leaders before they go into an UNESCO meeting. An organisation which just last week was abandoned by both the USA and Israel.
Helen. If you are more interested in bashing COG religion. Just say so. But don't invite me to hold your comments from now on to the standard you yourself are setting.
Helen I have not made up organisations like five eyes. They are all in the public realm and are there for your well being, you lithium sucking capitalist not paying the real price for anything extracted from mother earth because your biases have deformed your thinking in how the world operates and who holds title to its recources.
2:24 Now there is an intelligent attempt worthy of conversation. -I worked with the collapsing Soviet Union and saw how rampant unregulated market forces and puppet markets can work together. -I am sure you are aware of the workings of Chinese market capitalism. Those managers have targets that make your managers mind blow. And yes, this 100% capitalist system ruling a billion people has its central directive show end of this week.
Bill Clinton removed just a little piece of legislation, giving free reign to the banking system nearly destroying the world as we know it in 2008.
It is not internally inconsistent. It is the way of the world. I do realize that your reaction is probably ignited by a mental picture with a puppet with strings. I am more of the "coordinated effort" school. I am not a nutcase claiming the rulers of the world decide issues in Davos. I am just saying people exchange ideas and formulate their business plans accordingly. Why try fight the wind if one can adjust the sails.
Just one more thing. Many of the things I say come straight from the heart of Silicon Valley. If I stand accused of "cultic thinking" you may be right in that regard.
Some have indicated that Rothchilds, Exponential technological thinking, markets, "only discussing ideas that have the potential to positively affect a billion people" etc are indeed Buzzwords for icky theories. To me they are just a couple of fun guys and girls I meet now and then. You know the type of conversations that the originator of the AICF has when discussing China developments with the CEO's of the largest consultancy firms consulting the largest companies, serving the largest population centers.
"eidetic memory" In the november 1972 issue page 26 there is of course that smart looking poster child blonde guy on the right hand side wholesome and handsome.
Next to the article speaking sympathetically, to millions of informed readers and Wall street journal readers about Pres S. facing so many humanitarian problems while requesting an audience with HWA just 2 years after the ruthless squashing of a million people harboring any communist sympathy. In complete concurrence with the prevailing "domino theory" on the South East Asian theatre and the fifth populated country in the world (now one of the Tigers).
Ok Helen. And I am not even touching on AICF expeditions to the "Heart of New Guinea" by the ones who inspired Conrad's "The heart of darkness" (from Congo fame) Birds or minerals? You name it. Read up on the exploitation of New Guinea. Mining operations in the Congo. Just read up on how the wealth of the Saxon Coburg came to be. Oh Helen if I had the time.
Yep. Pass me some of that Rum from the international sugar factories.
I reject Armstrongism because it is untrue: Multiple gods. Rejects the bodily resurrection. Insists on conformity (in principle) to the legal requirements of the Mosaic law. Invented less than 85 years ago by a huckster.
Armstrongism is untenable and unreformable. Ian's work is sad because it is futile. There is a more excellent way.
I am afraid a novel does not compare to a memorable experience with a girlfriend having nothing. But I do compensate an eye for an eye in positive manner.
This preacher gets full marks for letting the public know that the fruits of Armstrongism are rotten. However, he gets a failing mark for encouraging people to hold onto the source of the rotten fruits - Armstrongism. His advice is foolish in light of what Jesus said in Matthew 7:17-18. If it is producing bad fruit then it is a bad tree. Who wants to continue with a corrupt tree?
Personally, I do not see any reason for keeping Armstrongism alive, BUT, I did agree with your statements toward the end about "justice" in the church and how it should treat people. Justice in the church was almost nonexistent at times. Treatment of HQ employees by administrators who were evangelists and ministers was appalling. Worldly companies would never have treated employees in such a manner. That mistreatment trickled down through the ministry to the brethren. Justice, grace, and mercy was anathema in the church and still is today in many of the larger legalistic groups who have taken things to the extreme.
ReplyDeleteWhy waste time trying to reform Armstrongism? Just join the 7th Day Sabbath Churches of God if your so inclined.
ReplyDeleteIan, as Jesus said "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit."
"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" ...and Armstrongism is the bad fruit.
What is it Ian that drives you to boldly go against the words of Jesus?
If I was a COGER, my first thought would be that you have a demon.
So Ian, what is it? Do you have a demon or are you just spitting in the face of your Savior for personal benefit? Do you have crafty plans to restart a movement where you are the controlling leader?
I recall Ron Dart talking openly in a sermon after the Garner Ted catastrophe that truly converted members have to walk away from Armstrongisim but take the truth of scripture with them. whilst acknowledging the past is a courageous act I would think it wiser for Ian Boyne to draw a line and try and move forward. The LGD sermon should be about the glorious future God has in store not crying over already split milk and the character flaws of dead sleeping men.
ReplyDeleteI speak as an ex CGI member.
what do u mean u will not post racist comments? are u saying ur followers tend to post racist comments? and you asked me earlier why i choose to remain anon? one reason is so i wont be subject to such perjorative behavior what seems to be an itegral part of the character of the anti coger...
ReplyDeleteindeed bigotry is part of the fabric of at least one of ur followers if u would make such a comment, and given the degrading name calling and otherwise attempts at humiliation what seem to be a hallmark of the anti coger, i would say that is par for the course for those what are quite naturally in the wrong...
Anon @ 12:32 wrote: "what do u mean u will not post racist comments? are u saying ur followers tend to post racist comments?"
ReplyDeleteThere is one person who sends things that are beneath contempt and filled with such hate and rage that I will not post them. Is that person you? If not, then you have nothing to worry about.
Being in business, I get around amongst the so-called upper, middle, and lower classes of the socio-economic scale. As a general rule, I've watched the instances of racist comment and racist treatment of people decline over the past twenty years. Unfortunately, there is a small handful of hardcore people who have not grown on a par with societal evolution, and these people are still hateful and continue to make hateful remarks. I separate myself from those hardcore types the minute I'm sure of their bad character, both because their attitudes and comments hurt my fellow humans, but also because they hate the people (me) of their own ethnicity who refuse to hate people of other races.
DeleteMy message to these people is that you cannot restrict or narrowcast the character flaw known as hatred if it's in your heart. Sooner or later, you'll find an excuse to be mean-spirited to everybody. Learning to treat people outside of our own WCG group differently has subliminally taught church members to make distinctions and to direct hateful behavior towards each other. And for some, obviously, the hatred has been intensified as if it were a virtue, rather than attacked and overcome.
BB
Eh, I wouldnt say its declined over the past twenty years, unless you're referring to overt, organized racism only. Most expressions of that did go undercover for a few decades. That said, they seem to be coming out of hibernation lately, mainly among those too stupid to realize theyre being fed a load of shit. Theres some "new converts" among that lot, but theres also a number of people that were just too cowardly to say anything prior.
DeleteI hate to hear that that stuff is surfacing again. The worst that ever made it to me was people automatically calling my Hispanic wife "Maria" instead of taking the time to learn her real name.
DeleteMr. Boyne, Are you asking us to stay with the people of God even in the midst of outright corruption, lies and sins to no end from the leadership and ministry? To stay and not say anything makes one a hypocrite. The bible states that all hypocrites go into the lack of fire. To say something gets that person branded a heretic and one that causes division. That person is quickly cut off from the people of God.
ReplyDeleteThere is no choice per se for this way of life. It is a calling from God and when recognized as a calling from God it is acted upon. The truth is the only thing that will keep one truly in this way of life.
You have correctly recognized the conditions of the COG's. The only solution I see is to wait for Christ's return to put back together His Body.
I've listened to part one of Ians presentation. The idea that those who stop attending church services have fallen away is outrageous. This is the same lie that other churches such as the Catholic church teach its members. According to my bible, salvation is through Jesus Christ rather than church attendance. A Christian is one who follows Christ rather than attends Ian's services.
ReplyDeleteRelationships with individuals or a group is not a end in itself. Rather it is a means to the end of enriching ones life. If a environment becomes toxic, the pro life thing to do is to flee that environment.
To me it's like working out. If the weight is too light, there is little muscle development. If the weight is too great, torn muscles will result. So there should ONLY be a degree of pressure in ones environment.
The holy spirit told me to be a stay at home Christian after my minister prisoned the mind of the church against me. My 'sin' was complaining about church crazies.
So Ian's blanket 'don't stop coming to services or you end up in the lake of fire' is dishonest.
Jeremiah s calling was special. Saying all members are Jeremiah's so they shouldn't stop coming to church is again intellectually dishonest.
Ian often and uncomfortably sounds a bit like Dave Pack in his biggest n best as well as monitoring how others are doing compared to himself. Just saying.
ReplyDeleteI would like to suggest that from a typological perspective Judaism = Armstrongism (= Laodiceanism).
ReplyDeleteRev 3:17 You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
“To be "wretched" physically describes life when everything one owns has been destroyed or plundered by war (Ps 137:8 LXX). Here it refers to the Laodiceans’ spiritual destitution and pitiableness before God. “Poor, blind and naked” refers to the three sources of their miserable condition. “Lukewarmness,” then, does not refer to the laxity of Christians but the condition of not really knowing Christ as Savior and Lord and thus being useless to him...” (Alan F. Johnson, Revelation, EBC, Vol.12, p.458). (Laxity is too obvious to be the primary interpretation).
In regard to not knowing Christ’s gospel of the Kingdom this is the typology:
Judaism is based on the Old Testament while Armstrongism is based on the Old and New Testament.
Judaism has truth and error and Armstrongism has truth and error (probably more of the latter).
From the Old Testament, Israel the Kingdom was looking forward to the coming of the Messiah and His Kingdom. Israel the Kingdom was expecting to be ruling in an earthly Kingdom.
From the Old and New Testament, Israel the Church, is looking forward to the coming of the Messiah and His kingdom. Israel the Church is expecting to be ruling in an earthly Kingdom.
This is somewhat surprising since many in Armstrongism believe in British Israelism who perhaps should understand the principle of delegated authority:
"The Governor-General of the Commonwealth of Australia is the representative in Australia of Australia's head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, who lives in the United Kingdom.” QEII was the first reigning monarch of Australia to visit Australia during her reign.
Before changes in constitutional law in 1927, King George V reigned as king in Australia. He reigned as king in Australia though he never visited the country.
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
The saints will also reign on the earth, but like George V in regard to Australia, they will not be on the earth.
Eze 43:7a And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever...
The reason for the Millennial Temple is that Jesus Christ will also not be on the earth, but will provide a place for His ‘dwelling presence’ as did the Mosaic Tabernacle and Solomonic Temple.
2Ch 9:8 Blessed be the LORD thy God, which delighted in thee to set thee on his throne, to be king for the LORD thy God: because thy God loved Israel, to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee king over them, to do judgment and justice.
While Christ will not be on the earth He will have His representatives on the earth - compare the Governor-General - human Davidic kings will represent and rule for Him.
The Last Great Day pictures God coming to tabernacle/dwell on the earth (Rev 21:3, 25).
I had a list that I'd compiled (prior to watching Ian's video) of some of the negatives found in Armstrongism that, based on what members have shared here, have never been corrected in some or all of the ACOG groups. These are areas which would require attention if we were to attempt to reform Armstrongism.
ReplyDelete1). Attachment to a single culture, and an attempt to impose that culture on all people of different cultures as a prerequisite to becoming members.
2) Hurting people from both outside and inside the groups; Searing peoples' consciences by teaching the withholding of the natural good aspects of human nature from outsiders, select insiders, and the offspring of church members. (Conditional love).
3). Concentration on the negatives of the surrounding world to the extent that it results in the destruction of many legitimate and wholesome aspects of life. This produces secession from life other than that experienced through the church. what comes from the church does not even come close to filling the vacuum which it creates, and leads to a morose and Kafkaesque existence, ie waiting for death or the tribulation. Sabbath services and collateral materials become an endless exercise in selling and reselling.
4). Obliteration of all learning channels other than the church and the "approved" version and interpretation of scripture and the extrabibilcal theories embraced by Herbert Armstrong. The truth is so many valuable lessons can actually be learned from today's culture, TV, the media, the internet, and prevalent hobbies and passtimes. Church Authority does not trust the members to select and learn their own lessons. it's all carefully controlled, and therfore lacks the personalization that true education requires.
5) Limiting natural spectrums (spectra?). Members must be conservative to the point of anal retentiveness, must gravitate personal tastes towards the 1% of the upper class; Dom Perignon as opposed to a simple thirst-quenching Budweiser (I'm having a Bud right now!), Handel rather than a toe tapping 3 chord song that you can hum and which relates to daily middle class life, pretentious attire which falls outside of one's own status and neighborhood.
6). Reciting one's church's official positions and opinions in everyday conversation, rather than anything original of one's own. This sounds one dimensional, and devoid of any sort of experience-based substance.
All of these, taken together, tend to make individuals cultic, and weird. If practiced as many of us did in the past, it makes us the last people anyone would look to as ambassadors of Christ. And they produce a joyless life
BB
Ian Boyne wrote:
ReplyDelete" I spoke about those well-known ministers like Albert Portune, David Jon Hill, Al Carrozzo, Gary Arvidson and Robert Kuhn and Lester Grabbe who had left because of our corruption"
NOTE TO IAN- It is my understanding that Al Carrozzo and his family attend with the United group in Southern California.
"What can you do to ensure that you will make it back to the feast of tabernacles?"
ReplyDeleteTranslation: What can you do to ensure you will keep depositing yer money into mah bank account?
Make sure not to ask any difficult questions that might lead to thinking for yourself, which might lead to realizing you're being had by folks like pastor Ian Boyne?
"But I said the answer for Jeremiah was not to reject Torah or the religion of those who had become corrupt. It was not to then accept the religion of the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Egyptians. It was to be true to the faith."
Maybe Jeremiah got it wrong. If Jeremiah had rejected Judaism, it does not follow that he would have then been forced to begin being true to a different set of unevidenced assumptions.
What made Jeremiah think that being true to one set of unevidenced assumptions was better than remaining true to another anyway? Maybe a better answer, at least a more defensible one, a more consistent one, would be to reject equally all unevidenced assumptions?
Obliteration of all learning channels other than the church and the "approved" version and interpretation of scripture and the extrabibilcal theories embraced by Herbert Armstrong.
ReplyDeleteThis might not have been quite so bad 50 years ago, when there was no Internet and you could actually get some good information from your Plain Truth subscription despite the Armstrongist spin. Today, however, if you make Beyond Today or Tomorrow's World your main source of information, people around you will recognize you as a cultist of limited scope. It's one thing if you grew up in such an environment, but nowadays there are very few normal, balanced, not-insane people who would choose to give up the World Wide Web in favor of cult blinders. This is one of the main reasons why Armstrongism is dying.
3.41 PM
ReplyDeleteThe governor General of Australia is chosen by the Australian government, and is a purely ceremonial role. Do a Google search before you post such nonsense.
Too grandiose for my attention span.
ReplyDeleteCant fault you on that, Dennis. Often these types of sermons could invoke such an overblown pomposity in the speaker that it would become comedic... or insulting. To his credit, Mr. Boyne sounded interested in his topic, at least. I didnt see much stuffiness or aloofness in his speaking.
DeleteMind you, I had to jog thru the clip; not going to sit through 30 min on a whim, but I watched overall maybe a third. So maybe I missed the stuffy, snobby moments. Someone willing to sit through the whole thing might have a better opinion.
The line about "if you can survive Church people you can survive anything" is an interesting twist, although I'm not 100% sure of Mr Boyne's intent behind saying that. Perhaps he would care to expand on that here?
But if he claims to be "the modern Ebed-Melech", run the other way. We've had enough OT appropriations to last a lifetime. :)
Delete"But I said the answer for Jeremiah was not to reject Torah or the religion of those who had become corrupt. It was not to then accept the religion of the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Egyptians. It was to be true to the faith. Similarly, I encouraged the brethren that today we should not reject Armstrongism because of the corruption of the Armstrongs"
ReplyDeleteIf Ian Boyne wants to say that the answer for Jeremiah was to remain true to Judaism and not not to turn to the religion of the Assyrians or the Babylonians or the Egyptians...
...then how does it make any sense whatsoever to suggest that "similarly" we should follow that example by doing something totally different: following a 20th-century American version of that late Greco-Roman bastardization of Judaism known as christianity?
Assuming Jeremiah got the right answer, and following that example is a good idea, then shouldn't he be recommending that we convert to Jeremiah's Judaism of 2500 years ago?
Assuming that Jeremiah were an historical figure and that he wrote any part of the book of Jeremiah, if we could go back in time and ask him, what would he think of a 21st century preacher using his writings to tell people not to forsake a religion he'd never heard of? Surely he'd be aghast at how violently his words were being anachronistically twisted so far out of their context and intent as to be completely unrecognizable.
It would even be more logical for Boyne to argue that Jamaicans should follow Jeremiah's example by "similarly" returning as well to their own traditional religious roots: obeah or pukumina.
As Dennis often says, and I concur, it's just another case of making the bible mean what it never meant.
I found Mr. Boyne's presentation to be dynamic, and succinct. By limiting himself to a 45 minute time period, Ian has avoided the common pitfall shared by most ACOG ministers of boring repetition and wasted words. In their form versus substance evaluation, if other Armstrongites around the world could sideline their superficial requirement for an HWA-style 1-1/2-2 hour sermon, and look rather at the content and effectiveness of a sermon, perhaps the movement would once again return to growth, and member retention. I also felt that Ian took the high road by concentrating upon the positive example of Jeremiah, rather than harping on the tribulation and the Lake of Fire. It is always encouraging to see balance.
ReplyDeleteThe point was made that church brethren are more difficult to get along with than people in "the world". Although I agree with this, I also see a spiritual conflict here, native to Armstrongism. Armstrongism has always taught that the difference between the Old Covenant and the New was that under the New, the law is written within the hearts of those who are in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit. The fruits of the Holy Spirit should therefore produce the reconciliation or restoration of relationships as Jesus taught. Fellow Christians in the hypothetical "true church" should therefore be much easier to get along with, than would be outsiders.
Jeremiah's daily living situation was different from that of an observant Christian caught in a hypothetical church that allegedly had the truth, but was governed by corrupt leaders whose lives somehow never embodied their own teaching. Jeremiah was a prophet who reported directly to God. His fellow priests may have been corrupt, but they were not in authority over him. In the old WCG, the leaders who were corrupt had positioned themselves "in charge". The insane ran the asylum.
I also disagree with the statement that "no one else understands the gospel". The founders of Armstrongism preached that Jesus Christ would return within our time (the ACOGs still say "in 3-5 years"). Their gospel supposedly was a warning to the world that we were on the event horizon to this. HWA always taught that "the world's" Christians made the gospel about the person of Jesus and denied the gospel that Jesus actually preached. The problem in that is, that Jesus Himself made the gospel about Himself. So, both the gospel of the coming Kingdom (except it's not to establish Armstrongism as God's government on earth for ever), and the gospel of Jesus dying on the cross to pay for all of man's past, present, and future sin debt for all time, are both equal parts of the gospel message. Teaching either one without the other is preaching just half a gospel.
Christianity is a form of individual expression of worship. That's the only way in which it can remain sincere, as opposed to being robotic and performed under duress. I don't believe any person or church has 100% truth, but so long as people are sincere, are not using their worship to hurt one another, are not worshipping demons or pagan gods, and are not making horrible sins (like temple prostitution or human sacrifice) part of their worship services, I believe all are covered by the blood of Christ, and will be in the Kingdom, whether it is in heaven or on earth. There is no one "special elite group". True Christians are found in all Christian churches, there are Christians who do not attend church, and there are also a heck of a lot of non-believers who practice Christian ethics. Ian does not appear to be teaching hurt, is not exploiting his members, and has not presumptuously taken Biblical titles for himself. So long as those conditions continue, and so long as there is goodness of the heart, it really doesn't matter to me what sabbath or holy days are used to express faith or worship, what foods his members eat, or mode of financial contribution for the members.
BB
Hopefully everyone made the transition to see part II on youtube. Although I did not watch them, the sermons by the other Jamaican ministers are also posted there.
ReplyDeleteBB
You can waste your time on that bullshit, if you want to. I'm not going to bother. I've heard it all before and Ian can go take a hike of a short pier somewhere.
ReplyDeleteAllen C. Dexter
When I originally saw this in scrolling, I thought you had written "take a piss off a short pier". :)
DeleteWell, it's an Armstrong tradition to fraternize with the adversary. HWA did invite the guy he told us would be the beast to visit Ambassador College.
DeleteSome left because of the corruption, some left all such groups because they were simply poorly educated preachers who were teaching false doctrines. I recall Ron Dart saying, after he left GTA, that just because the messenger is corrupt doesn't mean that the message is corrupt. True, but it can mean that both the messenger and the message were corrupt.
ReplyDeleteThanks ,Connie ,you are right.I meant to indicate that Al was a major part of the 1974 revolt and that he was out of the movement for a long time. I had read from the person who did that excellent expose on HWA for Ambassador Watch that Al had,indeed ,returned and was attending with United.Thanks for making this clear. Ian Boyne
ReplyDeleteHi 3:41, thanks for the comment. Even if I disliked a poster’s comment I would try, human nature to the contrary, not to describe it as nonsense - (Pr 15:1).
ReplyDeleteI am well aware of the present role of the Governor-General as I live in Australia and have some knowledge of the country’s political workings, supplemented, of-course, by Google. And that is why I chose my words carefully due to the limit on the number of characters allowed for a single post - note the use of “represents”/”representatives”.
In regard to the “purely” ceremonial role of the Governor-General, the late former Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam would tend to disagree as he was dismissed from office by the GG, and was replaced by the leader of the opposition, Malcolm Fraser - under the GG’s constitutional powers.
Eze 46:7b The house of Israel will never again defile my holy name—neither they nor their kings—by their prostitution and the lifeless idols of their kings at their high places.(NIV).
Eze 46:18 Moreover the prince shall not take of the people's inheritance by oppression, to thrust them out of their possession; but he shall give his sons inheritance out of his own possession: that my people be not scattered every man from his possession. (AV).
The Governor-General in colonial days would be a better analogy to use for the ‘power’ to be exercised by future human Davidic kings. (Cp. also the ‘powers’ of the governors in colonial America) - in a good sense of-course.
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Rev 7:15 Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple: and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.
BTW, how do you see the above Scriptures? I would suggest that they picture the priestly role of the heavenly Melchisedec king-priests in the temple in heaven during the Millennium. (It can’t be the time of the “eternal state, as it appears there is no temple ‘structure’ at that time (Rev 21:22) - the setting appears to be after coming out of “great tribulation”; God will not be on the earth during the Millennium so it can’t be Ezekiel’s temple.
Byker Bob, thank you for commenting that "there are also a heck of a lot of non-believers who practice Christian ethics."
ReplyDeletePoet Miller Williams called such people "secular christians," with the lower-case "c" indicating that they are generic, white label christians, not any particular brand of Christian. They can no longer subscribe to the supernatural parts of the religion but find no fault with the moral framework. Sometimes I call myself a secular christian and cite as my credo the two commandments Williams mentioned:
1) Never take up more than one parking place.
2) Always be kind to drunks.
This pair is facetious in form but serious in intent. If we see that it begs to be generalized as "don't arrogate to yourself more than your share of things" and "try to help people when they mess up," we realize it is a paraphrase of the Golden Rule.
10.51
ReplyDeleteThe governor general dismissing the Whitlam government was a abberation and highly controversial. Your position on the millennium seems to parallel the Jehovah's Witness position of the 144000 reigning from heaven with some lower caste immortals reigning on earth. This is not a JW blog.
HWAs church was and still is basically morally left wing. I say basically since the churches position on abortion and national self defence is considered right wing. Left wing rejects cause and effect (HWA gave lip service to it only) and its ownership by need that's taught by the churches give way. It's left wing Christianity. Which is also why the boring, hot air, Mickey mouse sermons.
ReplyDeleteIan's implied 'you qualify for the kingdom by tolerating the abuse in the church' is a old self serving line pushed by the ministry. So much for peoples right to be left alone and be free from abuse. That people can build character by developing their talents such as educating themselves, is conveniently hidden away.
Non believers who practice Christian ethics is misleading. Such people exist, which leads some to conclude that people can be moral without being a Christian.
ReplyDeleteWhat this point of view leaves out is that these non believers are the beneficiary's of the Christian moral cultural atmosphere. When a society turns its back on God, there is a moral decline, but it can extend over generations. So the old Christian influence is still there. These atheist Christians are free loading on the coat tails of genuine Christians.
It reminds me of the old 1980s movie 'Alien Nation' where the alien remarks that Americans are moral but not religious. It's not really true.
Christians didnt invent ethics. You think no one in, say, Indonesia, has morals?
DeleteMorality, ethics, and religion are three completely different things, 1:26. That is why I carefully chose the word "ethics".
DeleteHowever, there have been intelligent cultures throughout history in which higher levels of both ethics and morality have been deduced, just based on pragmatism and/or produces superior results. There have always been inherently bad acts which are recognized as producing harmful results, and therefore are made illegal and avoided. There is a Latin phrase for inherently bad acts, mala in se.
Many of the founders of our country were Christian, but many were also deists and free-thinkers. They wanted the thirteen colonies to become a better nation than the places they and the earlier colonists had come from. Of course, both Catholic and Protestant Christians were an influence in this process, but they were not the only influence.
BB
Thanks for the reply 11:43. I am not a JW and I would have thought my non-de-plume “Yes and No to HWA” would suggest my WCG background.
ReplyDeleteAs, I hope you will appreciate, I was quoting from the prospective part of the retro-prospective telescopic prophecy of Revelation 7, which deals with the “great multitude”; which implies that 144,000 and the great multitude will be in heaven during the Millennium - Christ and the Saints are going to replace Satan and the demons in the heavenlies (Eph 6:12; cp. 1:3, 20;2:6; 3:10) - their kingly role.
BTW you did not answer my question on the interpretation of Rev 7:14-15 - concerning their priestly role.
I do not believe that “some lower caste immortals” will be reigning on the earth. In my post I have mentioned human Davidic kings ruling for Christ which implies that the earth will be populated by human beings, and there descendants, left over from “great tribulation”.
Eze 45:17 And it shall be the prince's part to give burnt offerings, and meat offerings, and drink offerings, in the feasts, and in the new moons, and in the sabbaths, in all solemnities of the house of Israel: he shall prepare the sin offering, and the meat offering, and the burnt offering, and the peace offerings, to make reconciliation [“atonement,” (NIV)] for the house of Israel.
(Blood is required for atonement].
Eze 40:39 And in the porch of the gate were two tables on this side, and two tables on that side, to slay thereon the burnt offering and the sin offering and the trespass offering.
Eze 44:27 And in the day that he goeth into the sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.
I quoted 40:39 as “trespass” offerings are not “public” sacrifices as in 45:17; and 44:27 as in the quote below “ritual impurity” was not included, but which I have added in square brackets:
"It is evident from these lists that in Ezekiel's new order sin [and ritual impurity] will continue to be a problem for the nation. As he had done through Moses, however, through this prophet Yahweh reveals his magnanimous provision for forgiveness and fellowship with him" (Daniel I. Block, The Book of Ezekiel Chapters 25-48, Robert L. Hubbard, Jr., General Editor, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (NICOT), (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1998), pp.659-60).
Ac 1:6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?
Jesus Christ is going to restore the kingdom to Israel and this prophecy for the Millennium - “Behold, the days come” (Jer 33:14); “In those days” (33:15) - will be fulfilled:
Jer 33:17 For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel;
Jer 33:18 Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually.
Given the BI fixation with prooftexting Jer 33:17, one wonders how they handle 33:18.
DeleteHelen Wheels rocks the haus:
ReplyDelete...then how does it make any sense whatsoever to suggest that "similarly" we should follow that example by doing something totally different: following a 20th-century American version of that late Greco-Roman bastardization of Judaism known as Christianity?
RSK
ReplyDeleteGod has hard wired the ten commandments into the human brain. Which is why He holds gentile nations like Indonesia accountable for their national sins. The 'to whom much is given, much is expected' means that God holds the Christian bible nations to a higher standard.
Indonesia is one of the first nations HWA got an open door from the CIA in the special ops program to have the non-alligned nations within the Capitalist fold.
ReplyDeleteThe Indonesian dictator got the green light by the CIA to assaninate a million communists and HWA was one of the first to establish renewed ties with that pivotal and strategic South East Asian Nation covering the "Five Eyes" Anglo Saxon member state of Australia.
So please shut up if you know anything about God and Indonesia. Why don't they put the word "the" before CIA? Because you don't do that with "the" God?
nck
See also "The Year of Living Dangerously", with Mel Gibson and Sigourney Weaver. It is set during the 1965-66 Indonesian purge mentioned by nck.
DeleteSeeing that film was a very memorable experience. I had known very little about Indonesia prior to that, other than President Sukarno's name. My girlfriend at the time and I saw it during a So Cal rainstorm, in an old 50 cent movie theatre in San Dimas, CA. The roof was leaking like a small water fall, and we were bundled up and lacing our jumbo Cokes from my sportsman's flask of Cuervo. We had gotten there in her ancient Toyota which blew up several weeks later. Sometimes the best times you can have are when you have nothing!
BB
The Mayans throwing hundreds of human sacrifice offerings from the steps of their temples were just trying to restore balance to the universe in an ethical way by offering precious items.
ReplyDeleteDifficult subject. Western values, me like!
nck
The Aztecs did it in hope of staving off the end of the world. Now if that isn't incentive, I don't know what is. ;)
DeleteExcellent addition BB.
ReplyDeleteI was watching, the wobbly "The Good Shepperd" to understand Ian, his neck of the woods and the relevance of BI at one time for the US intelligence establishment.
Excellent flick to understand nick.
(both movies) Even if Matt Damon forgot to mention radio swan.
Ah well Ian, the last of tbe Mohicans.
One gotto respect the Mohawk.
Nck
The reason that people give for doing evil, and their real motives are two different things. So the 'good reasons' that the Mayans and Aztecs gave for human sacrifice should be taken with a grain of salt.
ReplyDeleteI was being wry. In hopes of surviving the end of the world, WCG members sacrificed all sorts of things they probably shouldnt have. Guess what, no one ended up in a place of safety after sacrificing their wallets, jobs, marriages, children, health, et cetera. Perhaps we did evil unto ourselves... willingly. What do we then make of our good intentions?
DeleteRSK
ReplyDeleteMany have called me deluded for my continuous pressing of positives.
My message is that TODAY you, we, ARE living in the place of safety, depending on ones perspective and of course if one has managed to not live in LASC or Chicago suburbs.
For the rest we are fine........unless of course you are part of the white middle class being wiped out by..... "the unseen hand" of unregulated free market economy.
It is all in the eye of the beholder, unless....... of course.
nck
RSK
ReplyDeleteAdam Smith used the expression 'invisible hand,' not your 'unseen hand.'
That was nck, TG.
Delete10:28
ReplyDeleteThe "unseen hand" are the puppet masters. The invisible hand has been used for more discuplines than the original economic meaning.
Nck
Nck
ReplyDeleteYour unseen puppet masters together with a unregulated free market are a contradiction. Only a command economy or crony capitalism can have your unseen hand. Please be consistent.
Have you been drinking Ian's Jamaican rum?
The only "puppet master" I see is NCK who has to turn every single conversation into free market or trade or some other silliness. Give it a rest.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind hearing about conspiracy theories. Mostly they're not true, to be sure, but just the off-chance that there could be a kernel of truth to it means I'd rather have at least heard of it, than not heard of it.
ReplyDeleteOf course, hearing about it doesn't mean I accept it. For that, I'd have to have evidence, and the more outlandish the tale, the better the evidence would need to be to outweigh its prior improbability. So until then, all Nck's crazy ideas have to stay out in the bin of eminently dismissable ideas. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The thing the bothers me about Nck is how he so obviously believes so many outlandish conspiracy theories. And the thing about conspiracy theories is that, like religions, they exist in the unfalsifiable domains where there is never going to be any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise, so I know he hasn't accepted them for any better reason than simple human bias and credulousness—terrible reasons to accept any idea.
Worse, as Anon2:24PM points out, his sheer biases lead him to simultaneously accept even ideas that cannot both be true, so internal consistency is not even a barrier that would cause Nck to dismiss an idea. Consequently, I'm not willing to read anything he says anymore.
Literally, the only thing I can think of to say in Nck's defense is that, well, unfortunately, he's not that unusual. He's not alone in failing to learn what to do and not do with his mental faculties.
A lot of what nck presents is factual or at least based on fact. I've researched much of it out.
DeleteHe believes that HWA was correct in his diplomacy (for purely secular reasons), and accomplished permanent good of which the rest of us are unaware because we got caught up in HWA's sleight of hand, which was the church "masquerade" that messed up everyones' lives. And, he seems to have an eidetic memory for all of the secular activities of HWA. At times, I've wondered if he was actually Dr. Robert Kuhn, although I am certain Dr. Kuhn has better things to do with his time.
My problem with that is that even if nck's opinion were reality, it all ends up that the crap we all went through, and the exploitation and deprivation, financed HWA's reinvention of himself as ambassador without portfolio.
I don't mind being charitable or doing good. I just like it to be based on an honest and heart-felt personal decision, not because some "philanthropist" ripped me off. HWA still comes off as the heavy. Now, maybe if the AICF had booked Led Zeppelin to play the Ambassador Auditorium with the proceeds going to the Sierra Club...........
BB
Helen,
ReplyDeleteA nice read. I suggest not writing too lengthy articles, for it exposes your lack of knowledge of the facts and theory. For instance where you quote 2:24 who obviously does not understand the economic theory of the "invisible hand" and the "unseen hand" of other disciplines.
Helen
I was discussing 2 movies. Then you spout some nonsense about me not getting the facts straight without offering any suggestion as to why an american religious entrepreneur focussed on anglo saxon bi theory would visit the leader of a strategic American ally in the South Pacific. Excuse me. I have to dismiss anything you write from now on. Especially in the light of this weeks released special opps files from the Reagan years. You obviously never read Stanley Raders pledge of loyalty to the Philipine junta's reform program of property rights and WCG support of it on the largest military base of that nation.
etc etc etc
The prime minister of the 2nd economy of the world making some time for wcg leaders before they go into an UNESCO meeting. An organisation which just last week was abandoned by both the USA and Israel.
Helen. If you are more interested in bashing COG religion. Just say so. But don't invite me to hold your comments from now on to the standard you yourself are setting.
Helen I have not made up organisations like five eyes. They are all in the public realm and are there for your well being, you lithium sucking capitalist not paying the real price for anything extracted from mother earth because your biases have deformed your thinking in how the world operates and who holds title to its recources.
2:24
Now there is an intelligent attempt worthy of conversation.
-I worked with the collapsing Soviet Union and saw how rampant unregulated market forces and puppet markets can work together.
-I am sure you are aware of the workings of Chinese market capitalism. Those managers have targets that make your managers mind blow. And yes, this 100% capitalist system ruling a billion people has its central directive show end of this week.
Bill Clinton removed just a little piece of legislation, giving free reign to the banking system nearly destroying the world as we know it in 2008.
It is not internally inconsistent. It is the way of the world.
I do realize that your reaction is probably ignited by a mental picture with a puppet with strings. I am more of the "coordinated effort" school. I am not a nutcase claiming the rulers of the world decide issues in Davos. I am just saying people exchange ideas and formulate their business plans accordingly. Why try fight the wind if one can adjust the sails.
nck
Helen,
ReplyDeleteJust one more thing.
Many of the things I say come straight from the heart of Silicon Valley.
If I stand accused of "cultic thinking" you may be right in that regard.
Some have indicated that Rothchilds, Exponential technological thinking, markets, "only discussing ideas that have the potential to positively affect a billion people" etc are indeed Buzzwords for icky theories. To me they are just a couple of fun guys and girls I meet now and then. You know the type of conversations that the originator of the AICF has when discussing China developments with the CEO's of the largest consultancy firms consulting the largest companies, serving the largest population centers.
Cheers
nck
BB
ReplyDelete"eidetic memory"
In the november 1972 issue page 26 there is of course that smart looking poster child blonde guy on the right hand side wholesome and handsome.
Next to the article speaking sympathetically, to millions of informed readers and Wall street journal readers about Pres S. facing so many humanitarian problems while requesting an audience with HWA just 2 years after the ruthless squashing of a million people harboring any communist sympathy. In complete concurrence with the prevailing "domino theory" on the South East Asian theatre and the fifth populated country in the world (now one of the Tigers).
Ok Helen. And I am not even touching on AICF expeditions to the "Heart of New Guinea" by the ones who inspired Conrad's "The heart of darkness" (from Congo fame) Birds or minerals? You name it. Read up on the exploitation of New Guinea. Mining operations in the Congo.
Just read up on how the wealth of the Saxon Coburg came to be. Oh Helen if I had the time.
Yep. Pass me some of that Rum from the international sugar factories.
nck
I reject Armstrongism because it is untrue: Multiple gods. Rejects the bodily resurrection. Insists on conformity (in principle) to the legal requirements of the Mosaic law. Invented less than 85 years ago by a huckster.
ReplyDeleteArmstrongism is untenable and unreformable. Ian's work is sad because it is futile. There is a more excellent way.
In response to BB 10:51 movie review,
ReplyDeleteI am afraid a novel does not compare to a memorable experience with a girlfriend having nothing. But I do compensate an eye for an eye in positive manner.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/09/books/review/louise-doughty-black-water.html
nck
This preacher gets full marks for letting the public know that the fruits of Armstrongism are rotten. However, he gets a failing mark for encouraging people to hold onto the source of the rotten fruits - Armstrongism. His advice is foolish in light of what Jesus said in Matthew 7:17-18. If it is producing bad fruit then it is a bad tree. Who wants to continue with a corrupt tree?
ReplyDelete