Wednesday, August 8, 2018

The Master Plan of Ambassador and 1975 In Prophecy

How was it that the Church could simultaneously predict the end of the world on the authority of Jesus Christ – AND develop and build a master plan for a distinguished private college at the same time?

Here's some of the facts of how this happened:

At around same time that “1975 In Prophecy” was published, The “present dimensions” of the Ambassador site were conceived in 1956, when the former estate of Hulett Clinton Merrit became available at auction.

While the Church was developing the Master Plan for the Ambassador College Campus, it became quite apparent that intense fundraising was needed. It was in 1956 that the Church came out with the largest push of Armageddon propaganda ever to come out – called “1975 in prophecy”.

As the Church was building toward a master plan to finish their College – they were publishing end-of-the-world propaganda to push their church – the main fund-raising vehicle of Ambassador College. The Church wrote the following in 1956, at the SAME TIME they were conceiving the master plan for Ambassador College.

This is the Master Plan that was finalized in 1963 – just SEVEN YEARS after the book 1975 in Prophecy was published, warning the world of a Very Soon to Come, Imminent Great Tribulation – which it is very obvious was not their “real concern”. (picture below from Ambassador Auditorium, the making of a cultural legacy, published 1994)

While modern science and industry strive to prepare us a push-button leisure-luxury world by 1975, United States Assistant Weather Chief... warns us unofficially to really fear the big drought of 1975. But the indications of prophecy are that this drought will be even MORE devastating than he foresees... and that it will strike sooner than 1975... probably between 1965 and 1972! This will be the very beginning, Jesus said, of the GREAT TRIBULATION!” (1975 in Prophecy, published 1956) 
Notice what was going on in Ambassador College during the same time-frame and projection of “the very beginning of the GREAT TRIBULATION”. (1975 in Prophecy, published 1956)
From 1957 to 1966, all properties within the projected Campus Boundaries were acquired.” (Ambassador Auditorium, the Making of a Cultural Legacy, published 1994)
Apparently, it was quite a fantastic, incredible and astounding coincidence that the greatest scare-mongering propaganda booklet called “1975 In Prophecy"came out just priorto the massive acquisition of all properties within the Campus boundaries – a booklet in which Herbert W. Armstrong unashamedly used the authority and the name of Jesus Christ to convince people the end of the world was near, and to join the “Work”, and save themselves from the terrors of Armageddon. It is very apparent that fear, intimidation, and the threat of destruction and war were used, with the full knowledge of the church, as a fund-raiser to complete the master plan of the Ambassador College Campus, including it's magnificent auditorium.

Notice the wording used in 1975 in prophecy in the quotes below. it's important to realize this was being penned by Herbert Armstrong ALL THE WHILE AND IN FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE MASTER PLAN OF AMBASSADOR COLLEGE WAS BEING FINALIZED, and a major push of properties purchase and financing was well underway: (All quotes from 1975 In Prophecy - 1956):
GOD ALMIGHTY now reveals....that one third of all our people will soon die... that a second third of our people...of your personal friends, relatives, acquaintances – will be killed by the awesome hydrogen bomb...”
our people will continue only a few more years in comparative economic prosperity”
All this is now only a few years off.”
people dying in every home, your loved ones, perhaps your children, or your parents, and scores of your close friends, perhaps even YOURSELF...”
Only one in three of your friends, of your loved ones, will remain alive, unless they come under God's divine protection under HIS conditions!”
Your immediate future is of your own choosing. You can take this lightly, let this slip from mind, allow yourself once again to be absorbed in the mechanics of today's complex society that you put this out of mind. If you do, I have now read YOUR FATE – and I say to you on authority of God Almighty that it is absolutely SURE”
The only thing that was absolutely sure was that while Herbert Armstrong was saying the above quotes on the authority of Jesus Christ, he did not believe a word of it – and was in the process of developing the master plans for the completion of his master building project – Ambassador College. Herbert Armstrong used tactics of great fear and panic of the end of the world to finance his vision of his college and his Auditorium – and the Church seems to have been the financing vehicle for his massive building projects and personal vision of “success”. (Image below from Ambassador Auditorium, the making of a cultural legacy, published 1994)

What then can we conclude?

Herbert Armstrong had absolutely no problem using the following methods to accomplish his building project: Co-Worker letters constantly touting financial emergencies, Using the name of Jesus Christ to suggest the end of the world while building a master plan for a college, using fear of war, death, and disease of friends and loved ones to entice growth in the church, the financial vehicle of funding for the project, and using God's name to grab money from any source possible to complete his project, without care or concern of the financial poverty afflicted on those who donated.

If anybody ever wondered how it was that one could summarily preach amazing prophecies of the end of the world, fully believed by the congregations of the fund-raising churches, and at the same time build up an expansive, expensive college campus - this sheds some enlightenment on the issue. We were all a part what I can only see myself - looking at the evidence - that all of this was one of the biggest doomsday-exploitation scams of the 20th century. Every prediction was a lie, and as we all know, never happened. I don't believe anyone ever expected them to occur. All eyes were on the final vision of the amazing campus of the Church and College, and Herbert Armstrong achieved his dream of becoming a successful, important person, with all of his treasures of worldly wealth at his control. 

You can look at the facts yourself with the following resources:

And also, be sure to peruse the Co-worker letters to see the methods HWA used to fund his massive building project without regard or concern about the financial condition of those he was begging for money from:

You will find the undeniable evidence that strongly indicates that the Church (and it's fund-raising conventions and Holy Days) was a well-planned financial operation, and the Media was a recruiting operation for HWA's dream real estate building project – using post-war doomsday propaganda in the name of Christ to accomplish his real estate dreams under religious pretense. 

If you dare, you may indeed begin to notice what appears to be much of the same use of familiar methodology in some of the splinters of Armstrongism even today. And it does not take much imagination to do so.

Contributed by SHT


Allen Dexter said...

I remember oh so well! There toward the end, I began to see that it was all a load of bullshit. So, when I was terminated with the demise of our department, it was not a very long shot to know that my days of fanaticism would soon end. It took a while to see through other nonsense like the sabbath, holy days, clean meats, the infallibility of the Bible etc., but I was already well on my way out. Even in 1972, when we had my fourth child and others were horrified that we'd do something like that so close to the "end," I didn't worry a bit. It was very apparent that no "Beast power" was going to be rising in Europe or anywhere else. It's still hard for me to comprehend the mindset that kept so many others glued to the cult. Like so many others, I was trapped for a while by my need to hang onto my job. Garner Ted took that anchor away in one fateful move. He did me and a host of my fellow workers a tremendous favor, but that was not apparent at the time. We all got termination pay that kept us afloat while we made other plans.

Hoss said...

Even though I read 1975 in the late 1960s, for some reason it didn't bother me. I think something GTA said on radio made me think it wasn't going to happen.
When I was questioned about the apparent conflict of interest - time is short! and build, build, build - the apologetic reasons I offered were a mix of sticking with it until the very end and not wanting to get caught like the Millerites in The Great Disappointment.

Anonymous said...

Decades later, Ambassador bigwig Michael Germano has been dumped as the head of LCG's Living University. He is now assistant pastor of LCG's Concord, NC, congregation. What a demotion!

Anonymous said...

Because of the 1975 lie, people put off education, marriage, medical treatment, with an undisclosed number losing the will to live.
The monies HWA obtained through this extortion is blood money.

Down Trodden said...

HWA was the original Bernie Madoff.

nck said...

It wasn't as bad as Munster ad 1534 or 1844, except for the (7:31) people.

I guess the vast majority was unbothered like Hoss (7:10) and me. I was raised "pray and work" or "work as if you don't know the time of return, unphased by predictions. As I recall in my upbringing we always talked about "the return of christ", hardly about the tribulation and never about the germans.

Thank God for quite a balanced upbringing in the midst of 19th century fanatacists.

I recall a y o u friend jokingly point at a lovely baby saying, "we know it is of the devil", hilarious. In retrospect I believe I was part of part of the church that didnt take it all so literally like the poor legalist souls that fell into the trappings of their own psychology to follow a man.

Never do, never did.


Anonymous said...

Hi nck
I can concur with everything you have said, I joined the church in January 1970 and the talk about 1972 was just in whispers among some of the older (and more fanatical)members so I was not fazed by any of it, I, just like you looked forward to the world tomorrow, so much so that I remained to the end and went with one of the splinters after that. A number of things made me finally wise up, one of them was seeing Ron Weinland's actions leading up to his 2011 predictions. I realised if I was going to criticise him I was going to have to criticise HWA as well because Weinland was doing the same types of things HWA had done. I will not go into detail on the other things for brevity. I thankfully don't attend any COG and never will again. I wish more people would read these blogs and have their eyes opened, I'm only sorry it took me so long to see through it all. toby

Unknown said...

The streets surrounding Ambassador were Del Mar, Orange Grove, Green and St. John.

Using the first letter of each street name spelled D O G S !

Lake of Fire Church of God said...

I remember the cognitive dissonance I experienced in my youth attending the WCG. I could not reconcile the Church's demands for money for the Building Fund with "Time is Short", "The Final Gunlap" and 1972/1975 in prophecy. Now I know why. We were sold on the elusive Utopian dream of the Wonderful World Tomorrow - which never came!

From what I read on Banned, the Splinter Armstrong franchises use the same business model except for Dave Packatollah's takes it one step further in his religious communist model of demanding all member assets and resources to build his campus.


Dumbhead said...

7:30 pm,

In fairness, Michael Germano is maybe around 80 years old. So the so called demotion could actually be semi retirement,with both parties agreeing on.

Anonymous said...

I’ve certainly run into other people who attended during the late 1960s and early ‘70s who claim now, retroactively, not to have checked their brains at the door regarding the endtimes and the other errors which have become plain to us in the years since.

We had a name back then for these people who didn’t fully buy into HWA’s prophecies. We called them “Laodiceans”, and felt that they somehow didn’t grasp the full gravity of the situation. Funny, how they now feel comfortable bragging, and chiding the rest of us. Guess that’s human nature.

nck said...


No I don't think so 8:18.

I was a "true believer" and toby here even went to great lengths to extend his stay.

First I thought that I was a bit harsh (especially on the 1950- 1970) crowd.

But I believe my "baby" example was extremely well chosen.

We believed that a the "baby" was radiated and bombarded with "Satan"s thoughts."

The chrystal clear, exact and precise position at the extremities of wcg dogma (that the flesh is enmity to god) left the "believer" with ONLY two choices. You either expunge the baby with excorcism on a daily basis or you take a more philosophical approach toward the entire belief system.

Perhaps I should not call the "literalists" legalists, but they are/were. I do not mean this in a derogatory way. But they seemed to have failed to see the deeper meaning of the philosophy.

In other words, perhaps they focussed on the tribulation because they were afraid or had other reasons to fail in the philosophical sphere and not focus on "beyond."

Exactly like the poor souls on this blog who say they have been impoverished by the church. I say perhaps they/we could have spent our money in other or better ways but for sure those people missed the many many statements in the "money letters" that one should not give beyond ones means.

To label the philosophizers "laodiceans' in retrospect is failing to see that HWA preached that "most of you are not getting it." During my stint mostly I had a hard time with the folk who completely failed to see the bigger picture but did appeared to adhere to "each and every yota" of the law. And NO I never ate pork even decades after I left the fold. The reason is that I never abstained from it for the sole reason of "health" or "because god said so". Most of the spiritual values I hold I do not hold dear because someone wrote them in a book.

Like Toby, I am not looking forward toward any kind of "world tomorrow" today, but I did transplant my core belief system to another system, so today I like speculating about the point of "technological singularity" as preached about by "silicon valley" and as started on that specific fair in 1938 called "the world of tomorrow."


Anonymous said...

Preaching fear religion was one of the greatest sins of WWCG Cult. Being driven to my first Feast of Unleavened Bread, in 1971, this member told me how Germany and the Common Market were going nuke America soon. I told him that was nuts. Germany had no nukes or missiles to deliver them , much less a motive. I knew from the start there were bizarre teachings. But I agreed with most of the doctrines and had no other place to go. I also quickly questioned the idolization of the Armstrongs and the ministry.

So have always been an "outsider", not drinking all the "cool aide". I'm with United now. Can anyone point to another church with more correct doctrines?

nck said...

"We had a name back then for these people who didn’t fully buy into HWA’s prophecies. We called them “Laodiceans”"

BTW: This is exactly the type of response I would have expected from a (former) legalist.

In my opinion (at the time), "a laodicean" would have been a person taking his/her "godly calling" lightly. I would have NEVER defined "a laodicean" as one who had opinions on "the leaderships extra biblical opinions". And the bible evevn in armstrongist escatological interpretation has always been chrystal clear on most subjects, like "no one knowing the exact time."

Again an example of putting leaders on pedestals where "in protestant" tradition", they did not belong. I absolutely abhorred the behavior of people putting ministers/meaning servants on pedestals, but maybe that was just me.

The driver behind "the money flow" was in my opinion a strong desire by the membership to "get the message out" and get done with a world where millions of people in India and Africa were starving of hunger, our boys were evacuating South East Asia in disgrace in a war against every original value of the USA, and the Soviets aiming nuclear rockets on each and every city of the good ol USA. There was "a clear and present danger" in the air and NOTHING that HWA would preach would surpass the general feeling of decay and immorality amongst the middle classes late sixties and early seventies.

Was it Archie Bunker who so masterfully represented "the old" or "Mash" deliberately placed in Korea since the Vietnam open wound was still to fresh until John J Rambo uttered the final verdict in 1987 in response to a renewed call of duty..........."do we get to win this time............?


Earl said...

I just saw a member letter from Jim franks of COGWA. He mentioned that he receives prophecies from people regularly and that one prophecy had a date for the start of the Tribulation that has come and went. He says these people can never believe or say the were wrong, just that God has delayed it for some reason. He then calls them foolish.
In the meantime, Cogwa has gone all in on Herbert w Armstrong who has similar prophecy failures, emphasizing him as necessary to the faith and someone for the youth to emulate and to learn more about through his autobiography.
This cognitive dissonance hurts my heart and mind. It is amazing how people blind themselves to this.

I. Feel Small said...


As you look down from your lofty perch at us unworthy dolts beneath you, do we appear to be very small and unintelligent to you? I have learned to skip over most of your wordy posts as they seem to say very little and contain much self-promotion. I do not mean to stifle participation, but some of your posts lack respect for those with whom you disagree.

Are you usually the smartest person in any room you occupy? If you are offended, that may be a good sign. You could use a bit more self-awareness.

I have wanted to deliver a similar message to "Time Will Tell" John, but most of his posts are not disrespectful.

Dumbhead said...

9:20 am,

There's maybe a lot of "outsiders" in the splinter groups just as there could have been outsiders way back in the past. Years ago people didn't talk about things. They shut their mouths about it.
I knew a member in the 70's that was critical of things but it was maybe just certain people that he would talk with. That's the way it was back then. How many ministers and evangelists didn't go along with things, but who knew about it? Who knows how many ministers in these groups today are "outsiders"?

Anonymous said...

I don't know what happened to 8:18s comment but I want to respond. I didn't know that's how people like me were seen but I was aware that I was seen as a liberal in the church at least until Tkatch Jr. I was then seen as an extreme right winger :-)though I hadn't changed. I had a saying, "May God save us from extremists" It still applies. toby

RSK said...

I had a set of relatives in the early 80s WCG; at least one of which I can definitely say was quite fanatical. I won't go into excruciating detail, but lets just say that one tried at every opportunity to show off their holiness, even at the expense of others.
Decades later the same relative claims to me "I never really believed a lot of that stuff HWA said."

Anonymous said...

So the money letters said that "one should not give beyond ones means?" Really! I recall reading over and over in church literature during the 1970s, that "one should give until it hurts, and then give some more." I often heard people say during the third tithe year, that they were on the verge of needing the assistance themselves. Members were impoverished.
Again, you use your city slicker lawyer training to whitewash Herb and his church. It's a pathology that you seem to have. You need a good lay down on Ziggy Freud's couch.

Anonymous said...

Of course, 9:20. The Catholic Church. The RCC of today is simply a by-product of all the primacy of Peter decisions that have been made since apostolic times.

nck said...

Hey 1:44.

Just get over at "the Painful truth" website. They have an expose there on the "putrified filth money letters". In a couple of the letters it says "do not give beyond ones means" and especially not in a "third tithe year." After the third tithe of course "resume giving to the building fund."

I find "the painful truth" most helpful at times for source material to make my point.


nck said...

"I feel small"

Indeed, you're opinion is rendered extremely insignificant.
The reason for this is that you interpret of "my opinion" as "self promotion". Again, as probably in the wcg years, you are doing it yourself......again. That is my point.


Anonymous said...

There was DUPLICITY in the "money letters".

There would be mixed messages throughout the entire letter.

It would go something like this:

2. Some of our members are SLACKING and are LUKEWARD!
3. We meed THIS MUCH for THIS, THIS and THIS and THIS.
4. Are you REALLY behind GOD's WORK and HIS APOSTLE?
5. SOME of you need to EXAMINE yourself, and see where you STAND
6. Those who are LUKEWARM and HALF HEARTED might end up in the LAKE OF FIRE!
8. Of course, we expect you to give as you are ABLE

This isn't how it went every time. But you would often see two, three - maybe four messages in ONE letter - one saying how urgent the need was, and how bad the crisis was, one criticizing the lack of giving as a sign of non-conversion leading to lack of salvation, of course, the lake of fire warning that MIGHT apply, and then of course, the backtrack that says "of course, I mean give as you are able".

Which really meant:

"Give as you are ABLE. But if you DON'T GIVE YOU MIGHT AS WELL GET OUT OF THE CHURCH because your heart is not IN IT! You're not REALLY GIVING unless you SACRIFICE! God's work NEEDS this money MORE THAN YOU DO. STOP SLACKING and GET WITH IT! And we graciously acknowledge your tithes and contributions. Thank you for your voluntary donations. God bless you."

nck said...


That is correct.

A lot of words for.........
"If the shoe fits............"


Mickey said...

Interesting post. I have often thought it would be revealing to do a timeline of HWA'S writings and note the events occurring at the same time. I suspect it would reveal further such cynical manipulations.

Anonymous said...

On Discovery ID they have a program called "People Magazine Investigates: Cults". They need to have the Armstrong cults on that show.

still feeling small said...


Your response to me so perfectly demonstrates your level of arrogance. I'm sure we agree on many aspects concerning HWA and his doctrines, but is it possible for you to find a more succinct manner of expressing your thoughts?

You make some excellent points, but they are often so long-winded and repetitive that I lose patience wading through them. I hate to skip over them completely, but maybe that is the best course for me to take.

You said, "Indeed, your opinion is rendered as extremely insignificant. The reason for this is that you interpret "my opinion" as "self-promotion". Again, as probably in the wcg years, you are doing it yourself....again. That is my point"

Is this really what you meant to type? It makes no sense to me. Maybe you were just angry and worked up, and it didn't come out the way you meant it. To be honest, your rebuttal is evidence that I may have shown you something about yourself that you don't want to admit.

Anonymous said...

2.45 PM
Spot on. It's like the old 'I don't mean to pry, but how much money do you have in the bank.' Herb would make the occasional 'don't give beyond your means' claim, then swamp the reader with 'give until it hurts.'
Herb was a master of duplicity.

I don't need to go to the Painful Truth website. I was there, receiving Herbs letters. So I don't need some mental seeing eye dog.

Brian Drawbaugh said...

One thing we need to keep in mind is that the atmosphere of the 60's and early 70's varied depending on where you were and who your pastor was. For example, I attended a large eastern (US) city church from childhood (1965) until after I graduated from university (1977). By the late 60's, it was obvious to me and my peers in the church of my youth that time would be longer than many had anticipated, and those who preached to us were not trying to change our minds. When I began attending in a different (rural) area, in a different church circuit, in the late 70's, we were continually told that time was short. People who are now grandparents delayed beginning their families, etc., due to the influence of these preachers and counselors. These 2 church areas were about an hour apart by car. I was blessed by being associated in the order I was, but many were not so fortunate.- Brian

Anonymous said...


Actually, nck said:

"Indeed, you're opinion is rendered extremely insignificant. "

FYI: You said "You're", but did you mean "Your", which, for one trained in law, where one word can make or break an argument, is very surprising. You're means "You are". You wrote, thus, "You are opinion is rendered extremely insignificant" is itself a statement rendered extremely insignificant because it is nonsense. Such a statement would never be admissible in first grade, nonetheless any kind of legal proceeding.

Nck also said:

"The reason for this is that you interpret of "my opinion" as "self promotion"."

I think nck may have meant "your interpretation of my opinion" not you interpret of "my opinion", because again, that, for one trained in law, is very surprising.

NCK said

"Again, as in the WCG years, you are doing it yourself"

Doing what yourself? What is "it"? Elaborate on "it". And how is "small" doing "it" "again"? what are you referring to the first time?

What is your point? How can one expect to understand the case you are trying to present when you gargle out such nonsense? "small" is right. Your rebuttal can only be considered careless, grammatically incorrect, lacking of sustenance, and unbecoming of someone trained in the methods of law. A typical attitude when one is challenged of arrogance - a trait well established in your many posts, no doubt fueled by your years in an Armstrongism environment.

Anonymous said...

5:16 is exactly right.

Every church area has always been different in culture and in attitude.

Different church areas varied in:

1. Economic poverty or economic wealth
2. Extreme fundamentalism to extreme liberalism.
3. Very small, tight groups to large, sprawling congregations
4. A very strict, domineering, HWA's The Man type pastor to a very liberal type pastor
5. How much influence the regional pastor had in the local church circuit
6. How street (think Chicago) a congregation was - or how non-street (think Oklahoma City) a congregation was
7. How close to HWA/Director of Church Administration the Pastor was.
8. How much a congregation REALLY listened to their pastor.

There were so many variables from a congregation to a congregation that going from one to another might as well have been a culture shock - except for the church format and the Armstrong Dirges, which were always the same and bound us together (which is how we always got along at the Feast - and the fact the messsages were always, consistently, on the same topics at the Feast. Think "WHY ARE WE HERE".) This is why some people here report one thing and another might wonder how in the world one could think this or that and have no idea or recollection of such an experience.

Anonymous said...

6.02 PM
Churches were varied, but, but, there is the bell curve. I attended many feast sites, and I experienced these differences. The odd church had a 'good' minister, but then only for a while. But it's the center of the bell curve that most members experienced. Other wise, there would be no Banned or similar dissident sites. The church was a abusive cult. That's the center and the majority of the bell curve.

nck said...


I can do the more succinct. You might like my 2:57. I was toning down on the amount of postings and presence in topics. But succinct quirky strategy might increase the number.


I am afraid I have to agree for 99 percent with 5:50. Except for the last 4 sentences and the fact that I was not making a legal statement but stating an opinion.

The "it" exactly refers to this phenomenon of "ministerial opinions" being raised to church dogma and doctrines by the listeners, leading to many of the things 6:02 speaks about.

I think many people, to this day have difficulty seeing where hwa was expressing "an opinion" or a timeless principle.

This might also be a generational thing. I was just listening to Goebels's secretary. She thought the current generation more mature and aware and loved that.

I was also raised and educated under the premise that "all" people say are "opinions" and regarding to the will of God are "best guesses", and never to be followed blindly.

In regard to 6:02 "church culture" statement I have stated before that my local area consisted for large part out of those who had resisted and were actively resisting real and true opression worldwide.

I must concur that the experience of a middle class south carolina y o u person was different from an area where people would proudly be advertised hwa's highest diplomatic distintion, bestowed personally by a person, in whose name they had received beatings on a daily basis while working involuntarily on their infrastructure project.

But the differences were even more aperrant at sep camp. Having kids from the inner slums from manchester mix with oil rich houston kids, obnoxious pastor kids from pasadena mix with irish boxers entangled in civil war at home.

All a fascinating "social experiment", glued together by extreme clear principles and real people finding "the middle road."


Earl said...


You really could do better with your clarity. This isn't a difference in acumen between you and the reader. As an example, in your last line above I'm not sure what the "extreme clear principles" you speak of are. I'm not sure who the "real people" are and I'm not sure what you mean by "the middle road".

As others, I have enjoyed comments of yours, but then don't know what your point is many other times. I know I've had to nail down my writing in the past and still need to remind myself that without background/context the reader really will not know what I'm trying to communicate if I leave it to them to make a line of guesses. I think expecting the reader to gather what you mean from a single undefined comment is okay, but sometimes in your writing you build on one undefined comment to the next until the reader is left with little surety of what you are saying. My two cents.

Earl said...

Also, I'm not sure from where you attend WCG, but it was/is extremely rare for HWA and/or minister to speak what they believed to only be "opinions" that you could take or leave.

nck said...


I really appreciate your feedback. Over time, my "standards" on postings, have dropped dramatically due to negative feedback or non at all. Presumably it has now dropped beyond acceptable standards of communication and perhaps even rendered completely incomprehensible to new arrivals on the blog. Thank you for pointing that out, I have slacked, mea culpa.

a) ministers opinions
Through the lense of seeing a minister as a "minister" or "teacher", one can see or re evaluate many "lessons" or "sermons" as "examples" or "means to communicate" spiritual or other lessons.

At least, in 22 years no one ever twisted my arm.............

As a matter of fact, when Christ was teaching, he used examples and parables to get a greater message accross.

I assume you never cleaned your house for unleavened bread, BECAUSE the minister told you so. I assume you did/do it because of the significance it might hold to a greater spiritual truth of ridding oneself of sin. (Regardless of that is true or not.) Or perhaps do you believe that Christ really meant that people could only have 25 talents. Of course not. He was conveying a message.

Perhaps this clarifies some of my perspective on hwa as a teacher and not as the fountain of ALL wisdom ever compiled on earth. That honor goes to google of course.

"Extreme clear principle"

I thought I gave an excellent example. To teach that "all flesh is enmity against god or things of above" is very direct, clear and cutting.
I gave the example of that little "pink baby" who was so incredibly cute, but according to "doctrine" would already have been bombarded with the wiles of the evil one.
One would either have to get rid of that baby through exorcism or find "the middle road" and try and make the best of that little pink innocent blob.

"The real people"
I'm sorry. I was thinking of the cardinal ratzinger versus the current pope debate. Cardinal Ratzinger as defender of the faith has always been a strong defender of legal truth as director of the office of the church inquisition. However he failed to enthuse people through his straigh reasoning. The current pope I would define as one "connecting to real people" with accute sorrows, trying for his church to find "the middle road" between unchangeable dogma and doctrine and the realities of the day.

As a matter of fact I would define Jesus as a seeker of "the middle road". We intellectually know how awful and perhaps illegitamate or immoral a profession like prostitution , tax collector or salesmen is. However Jesus decided to find out what it is really like to be such a person, he was seeking what he could do for them, to save them.
So he moved from the extremes of the law to the middle in my opinion.

Real people. The people who should not concern themselves with being in the role of judging how far others have strayed from the boundaries of the law. As you demonstrate through your criticism of my musings, it is impossible to weigh the scales if you do not have or are for some reason not able to interpret all the available data. Thank you.


Anonymous said...

Members are/were taught that minister 'opinions' are the words of God. Many, perhaps most members still view their minister in this way. Herb was to members what the pope is to the Catholics. His words were regarded as God speaking in person.
Much of what you say is either completely or significantly divorced from reality.
It's as if you regard reality as malleable rather than fixed.

nck said...


I regard reality as completely and utterly and 200 percent malleable.

You have spoken reality!

All is flow!

I completely trusted what HWA said about himself and thus regarded him extremely flawed during my 22 year stint. But you could be right about the other 143999. I'm just expressing my N=1.


Anonymous said...

Interestingly, did not the Auditorium complete building in 1974? if this were alluded to in the article or comments above, I missed that. Great article. 71 the shovel was put to the ground with HWA in hard hat, then 1972 had not happened and all the money to build the Aud was in.

nck said...

Hello 10:33pm

Although I sympathize with the questions posed in the article, the premiss (as usual) is a complete load of crock.

To help you clarify my position.

The Ambassador Auditorium financing was "secured" through a 20 year lease, ending in 1994.

The banks offering wcg exteral credit lines did this on the basis of "average cash flow".

The fact that Tkach sr (gang of crooks) pulled the plug at the exact moment the auditorium lease was paid off made me speculate that Rader had been in control of wcg (strategy toward mainstream and tkach as his 1979 installed puppet) until his very death and of course jr presiding over Raders funeral (some 21 years after Raders presumed detachment from the throne). Of course Rader had been an (founding) officer of the AICF "independent branch from wcg corporate."

My speculations usually lead people on here to think I am completely detached from reality. But my "revelation" on the 20 year lease and the date of ending that lease, might make some reconsider that I am only "perhaps a bit" detached from reality, for certain not completely and at least a good story teller.