I was contacted by an editor at Forbes London who is writing about WCG's teaching on "The Place of Safety" and my personal experiences with the concept as a former Pastor. Interesting in that Forbes is mainly an economics publication
(I hated the speculation and never intended to tell anyone to go anywhere taking Gerald Waterhouse's marathon sermons with a grain of salt from my youth. You all recall, I am sure, his response when I asked him what he would do when HWA died. I eventually told him personally how I felt about his visits and that he caused more problems for me than he solved. He just said "Is that right?" and I got kicked under the table). I would have opted for online "final training" The whole concept was a badly cobbled opinion and teaching taking many unrelated and vague OT and NT scriptures and weaving them into making the texts mean what they never meant nor could mean to this day ). After the Jonestown debacle, the fear of it all in the minds of many was set. However, I found that "going along to get along" was more common than speaking up.
Before this interview, Wednesday, I would like a bit of fresh input on how you may have felt personally about it when the concept was presented. No rants, just how you really felt. Fears, expectations, questions, etc. Back in the day, did you agree? Did you look forward to it?
Thanks for your input.
An aerial view of Petra reveals that while it may have deterred the Romans, it is not exactly safe from above in our day.
26 comments:
I looked upon it as a Mega Feast of Tabernacles, with all the fancy headquarter ministers as speakers/teachers present, instead of the local overbearing goons. It was alway a special occassion when we would have visiting ministers with some "insight" into the
big picture.
When I was a kid a friend of mine went to Petra for holiday and told me it was too hot to live there and water was scarce. So I knew a "nuclear winter" of some sorts had to set in to provide for some moist through the plumbing.
I told my friends when I was 10, a World War would occur within the next 5 years or it would not come at all. Today I have concluded that the Cold War is over and the only church I visit is the BannedCOG.
When I was 12 2 families in our Congregation left for Petra after extensively warning us all. After 4 months they returned. I found them ridiculous when they left but we all welcomed them back as friends because they were nice people but seriously mistaken.
Our Pastor drew a lot of flack when one time he sermoned and had said that ONLY MR Armstrong knew the time to flee because the date was in his little blue book in his safe.
Of course this was a wink wink nod nod joke but many people were offended and even I felt the need to ask my parents, what was that remark about the blue book? To which they offered the explanation that our director was a funny man. But I was a serious kid, Homey don't smile!!!!!
nck
I believe Leroy Neff's 1982 Good News article on the subject is probably the most comprehensive official statement of the church on the subject (see http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Good%20News%201980s/Good%20News%201982%20(Prelim%20No%2005)%20May.pdf). If memory serves me, Gerald Waterhouse was the only "evangelist" who loved to discourse on the topic; and he did his best to make you feel it (though your butt was usually numb by the time he finished).
Petra is now a giant tourist trap. It is not some remote barren place in the least, and is actually considered a "World International Site"
There are lots of restaurants and hotels there. Many places to order pizza for delivery, if that is where you end up for the "TRIB" !
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaurants-g318895-c31-Petra_Wadi_Musa_Ma_an_Governorate.html
Dennis,
The biggest mystery is why people (including me) would believe that all of prophecy was aimed at us 2000 to 2500 years in the future.
We also neglect the history of 2000 years ago.
I have been listening to a Great Courses series on how Jesus became God, and found out that man becoming God was believed to have happened to different people during that historical time period.
Some were reported to have performed great miracles and had great wisdom.
This would have made it easier for the author of John, Acts, and Paul's epistles to make the same claim.
We are not seeing provable great miracles today - unless you count the fleecing and duping of large numbers of people to give up their money and free will.
I noticed that Neff basically blamed members for setting dates and gives the impression the church never has. This is a falsehood. The leadership and ministry of the church back in the late 60's was precisely behind the specific date of January 7, 1972 as the date the church was to flee to Petra..
We were at a combined holy day service in Columbus, Ohio when the minister present told us to come back early after lunch break because there was an important announcement from headquarters that he had to make and that the doors would be locked during this afternoon service.
He had a large chalkboard on stage that had a timeline on it that went to January 7, 1972. My mother copied this crap and took it home and posted it inside the kitchen cupboard where she preceded to mark the months and years off till January 7, 1972 arrived.
For them to constantly say the church never gave out an official date is a lie.
The 'place-of-final-training' will not be easy folks, many inconveniences, for instance the voltage there is 220, will damage appliances!
TLA Spot on. One of the motivations for writing and inserting the two birth stories of Jesus later into the text was to basically send the message that 1. Jesus was not a bastard or "born of fornication" as accused of in John 8 and 2. The Caesars were gods, born of virgins etc so that kind of story for Jesus would resonate with the general population. Of course, the birth stories of Jesus are made up whole cloth and much taken from OT scriptures which makes it seem so prophetic. It is obvious Luke and Matthew never read each other's story.
The birth stories, of course, negate the genealogies which don't agree with each other anyway.
And too, the Book of Revelation is a failed first century "prophecy" and was not and is not meant to expand out any further than when it was written, most likely, in the summer of 70 AD just before the Romans took Jerusalem and won. Bible Prophecies are primarily written to "just around the corner" encourage those in whose time they are written.
Nuther topic.
You should asked Forbes if they can do a separate article (or a follow up) about the cults that came out of WWCG and how they still hold their members in fear with their destructive end time prophecies.
A lot of people seem to think that ‘World Wide’ no longer exists. Which is only half of the story.
Dennis
The book of Revelation is the only book with ugly threats if anyone dares to change its contents. Which is not surprising since it deals with the deaths of billions of people. This also means that it's dangerous to intellectualize away its contents, and convince others accordingly. But I know that this won't deter those who have grown accustomed to living in a ivory tower.
I didn’t come across WCG or its Petra doctrine till the early to mid 1990s. So, my introduction to Petra was by way of the Chaos comic by Jack Chick (https://chick.com/products/excerpts/comics/105-excerpt.html). My Baptist friend had a stash of his comics and tracts and we’d spend countless hours reading them together. Then came Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with its final setting at Petra. My friend’s mom took us to see the movie and we knew the place from what we had read about it. Ahhh the good ol’ ‘80s! LOL!
Hey Anonymous 6:49, it doesn't take a great deal of "intellect" to figure out that Revelation is apocalyptic mythology, not reality. So in this wacky vision, the author is seeing "him who sat on the throne," whip out a scroll from which he reads out the judgement to be poured out upon the earth. Really? There's some divine entity who needs to sit, and on a throne, writing on scrolls (very old technology for a divine being don't you think?).
The Case Against the Place of Safety
Points:
1) There are two groups of people in Revelation 12:13-17. One that goes to the place of safety and one that doesn’t. Those groups are clearly described in the immediate context. One is mentioned in verse 13 as “the woman who gave birth to the male Child”, which refers back to the woman in verses 1-5. The second set is mentioned in verse 17 as “the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Just from this, it is clear that the first group is the Jews and the second is the Christians. After all, it was the Jews who gave birth to the male Child. The church couldn’t have possibly have given birth to the male Child; it didn’t even exist yet. And the church (of verse 17) is indeed the offspring of the woman (verse 13). The problem with this is that it is only the first set of people are taken to “her place” (the place of safety) and are protected from the serpent; the second set of people aren’t. Every preacher I have ever heard promote the place of safety glosses right over verse 13. Many don’t even read all of verse 13, but if they do, they give a passing reference to the woman being the church, often with an “of course” or “obviously”. They don’t want people to think too much about that woman. And they certainly wouldn’t want to tie it back to the woman in verses 1-5; they would never try to assert that this woman is the church. Some might argue that there is only one continuous woman from the time of Abraham down through today. Maybe so, but Revelation 12 clearly talks about TWO sets of people and makes a clear distinction between them. The second set of people, in verse 17, is “the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Rev 14:12 refers to the church and the saints with a nearly identical description, “those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus”. So, it would seem that Revelation 12:17 is the saints (the church). The conclusion is that it is the Jews who will be taken to a place of safety, not the church.
2) The place of safety that the woman fled to for 1260 days in Rev 12:6 is singular, as is the place of safety in Rev 12:14. Yet the Church of God has consistently taught that the verse 6 place was not a single place and that verse 14 is a single place.
3) Matthew 24:16 says “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains”. It says nothing about those who are elsewhere. Who is in Judea today, the church of God or the Jews?
to be continued....
I was born in the mid-1960s and grew up in the church. I remember going to SEP Orr in the early 1980s after HWA put the church "back on track" and when it came time for the tearful goodbyes at the end of camp we all told each other we would meet up again at the place of safety. The college students who were staff and counselors talked often about the place of safety as well. Despite all of this, it never seemed truly real to me, though I clearly remember hearing numerous sermons about it, and was a true believer as a teen and as an AC student. Perhaps it was just too abstract for me to really believe.
I recall visiting Petra during my college days and wondering why the place of safety would be located just a stone's throw away from where the final battles of the end time would take place. It seemed absurd that a few small mountain ranges would provide shelter from all of the conflagration for us. The cognitive dissonance was running high!
It was much easier to believe that God would miraculously protect His people wherever they were, than it was to believe we would fly chartered 747s (eagles wings) to the Middle East and be miraculously fed (perhaps by ravens?) while living in holes carved into the rocks.
I guess I was somehow blessed with a filter that just made certain things a step too far to believe, though I didn't really know why.
The Case Against the Place of Safety (cont.)
4) The KJV refers to the people of Rev 12:17 as the remnant. The Greek word is not explicit on what remnant means. The concept of remnant in common English is that of leftover scraps after the good stuff has been taken away. However, the Biblical concept is quite different. “Remnant” in the Old Testament is referred to as “very holy” when used for the offering portion remaining for the priests. The book of Ezra refers to the returning Jews as a remnant. Isaiah and Jeremiah talk of a remnant returning to the land. Ezekiel talks of a remnant that shall be saved. The point is that the remnant of Rev 12:17 is not made up of some inferior Laodicean Christians, but rather, the choice elect. There is no indication in Rev 12:17 that they are anything otherwise.
5) Revelation 13:7 says Satan shall war against the saints and overcome them, they don’t escape. Daniel 7:25, too. It doesn’t say that some will escape and some won’t.
6) There is indeed a promise of protection for the faithful Christian at the time of the end, but it is not the Revelation 12 place of safety. Revelation 3:10 clearly says that the faithful will be spared in the time of trial. “Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world”. Nothing here about a place of safety. This is addressed to the church at Philadelphia. If you believe in successive church eras and conclude that it is the Philadelphian era that is going to the place of safety, then you are confronted with trying to explaining how the Philadelphian era gave birth to the man Child. Luke 21:36 also promises end-time protection to those “worthy”, “Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass”. Not a bad idea, but no mention of a place of safety.
Observation: The place of safety doctrine is the Church of God’s own rapture theory that has been invented and abused by church leaders to manipulate people into staying in a human organization, thinking that doing so will protect them during the great tribulation. This, of course, gives more power to the leaders, both in terms of more money and in terms of more personal loyalty. Once this place of safety myth is shown for the fraud that it is, people are then more free to follow a leader because he follows Christ, as opposed to following a leader only to save their own skin.
I had some doubts About petra, but thought it might be good With so many girls there.
GrittyMan
They used scrolls in Revelation since they didn't have ipads in those days. They also had angels on horses and chariots since motor bikes, cars and tanks hadn't been invented yet. Will it make you happy if Christ returns in the Millennium Falcon?
9:40
Gritty Man should reintpret scripture toward the Tinder relationship app.
And Lo and Behold the App of Life was opened and the Lord swiped many into the lake of fire.
nck
That is really interested no2hwa, I had never heard that before. I always heard the church never set dates, but then could never understand why they had a booklet titled "1975 in Prophecy." Seems a bit misleading... Just like Dave Pack, most of these groups often strongly imply something, but then stop short of being very clear and saying it precisely. This way they can deny whatever was said later. (also looking at you Bobby T.)
I was told I would never graduate high school, then would never graduate college, them would never get married, then would never have my first child, then a couple more times and well, I am still here and many of those who told me I wouldn't make it, aren't. The PoS was taken about a lot, even to young kids and it really has me afraid when I was younger. It was eye opening to know much of it was made up by Waterhouse.
Bit weird Forbes contacting Banned.
I joined WCG a few years after 1972, and I guess I was relieved that nothing happened in 1972.
I remember a few ministers who said pre-1972 they had some doubts about the POS teaching; I think at least one said he told his congregation the POS might not be true.
Later in a CGI or ICG sermon GTA told the whole story of the doctrine and why he dropped it.
@anon 5:43
No weirder than the COG’s and their teachings!
would fly chartered 747s
I read an account (perhaps on the Ambassador Report) where a minister said there would be a fleet of DC10s. There were some problems with the DC10 regarding splitting of wing bolts. Apparently the bolt was about 10" long, which led the minister to say the DC10s would be held together by 10" angels.
9:55. This exact same thing was told to us in the Dayton church.
" Apparently the bolt was about 10" long, which led the minister to say the DC10s would be held together by 10" angels." November 24, 2020 at 9:55 AM
Sounds like bill billingsley shit. Heard that also.
Hi all, this Richard Branson.
Nice to see that you have a pic of me on Banned.
Do you want know the secret of me getting rich?
Simple, I avoided Dave Pack!
As the LCG expositor's article said correctly, the woman is the Jews who gave birth to the Man Child and will be in the place of Safety. It does not say for the church anywhere to go to the place of safety , pack our bags, have a few days here or there to get there when it is expressly told to "THOSE IN JUDEA" to flee to the mountains and not even go into the house to get anything. They often travelled on the tops of the flat rooves from roof to roof. The church does not have time to go there check in a hotel then go to the Place of Safety. In Revelation after chapter 4 the emphasis changes from the church to the Jewish people. The church is not mentioned after that, only once more in a statement I believe. The two wings of a great eagle is not a plane but talking about God and how he shelters us under his wings, besides that we need more than one set of wings. For one ruler over one of the many split offs to tell his congregation it is time to flee is obnoxious as he has no idea who is worthy or if he is even worthy as only God can read the hearts of man and the church spreads far beyond the split offs but extends to many all over the globe who follow God and God knows who they are not us.
Post a Comment