"The Two Witnesses" podcast, where two former AC students discuss the beginnings of the WCG and different ways the hosts joined the cult
This podcast is a new idea by a couple of older Ambassador College graduates, myself and former WCG member and student Ralph. The first 2 episodes are now available to listen to, for those who may find it interesting.
The basic idea is to express in audio format some of the experiences we had, and how Herbert W. Armstrong's inimitable style hooked people into and indeed kept them in the Worldwide Church of God cult.
In addition, since we both eventually left the WCG (before many of the current WCG splinters were born), in future episodes we will discuss how we managed to leave, but first things first!
Episode #1 ("Unto Us A Cult Is Born") is more introductory, certainly nothing new to anyone who has ever been a member. We try to explain some of the history of the WCG, as well as the HWA mindset and formula that led to what would eventually be a church with members numbering in the 6 digits, and a multimillion-dollar, worldwide multimedia corporation. This cult leader with no credentials or political following would also somehow manage to get himself personal audiences with many of the world leaders of the 1970s and 80s. What was it about him that managed to attract people and create the Worldwide Church of God? Why do so many of the splinter groups, even now, follow and virtually idolize this man and his teachings?
(Apologies for some aspects of the audio in this initial episode which came out a little rougher around the edges than planned.)
Episode #2 ("Fifty Ways To Join a Cult"), focuses more on how the two hosts managed to find themselves in the cult: one by hearing HWA as a young man, which led to his coming into the church "cold turkey" as a new prospective member. The other by being born and raised in it on his mother's knee. We also touch on some of the well-known evangelists like Rod Meredith and Gerald Waterhouse with clips from their old sermons.
We don't know where this idea will take us, if anywhere, in which direction ultimately, or indeed even how many episodes. At some point it would be great to focus on some of the current splinters, which are in fact the living legacy of HWA's empire. Certainly merely a shadow of the original organization but not irrelevant by many measures.
For those interested please feel free to listen at your leisure, and of course non-trolling comments are welcome (a contact email is on the website). I will also try to check Banned semi-regularly.
There is a general plan to post at least 2 more episodes after this, with anything beyond that yet to be decided.
We hope some may find this entertaining, informative or nostalgic or, which would be best of all, even helpful.
Michael
82 comments:
Poor little Bob Thiel...preempted again! He thinks he is one of the two witless witnesses and yet is impotent in fulfilling his own lofty expectations. Poor little guy.
Not sure theres much of an audience for it, but still a good project.
The added audio clips from COG leaders give the podcast standing , provenance and proof.
RSK
I do think these will serve a purpose. We still have people stuck in the various splinter cults of Armstrongism. When they hear and see first-hand accounts of people who have left and who have not been struck dead by some angry god, as they have been led to believe, they might start waking up. It's only a dream, I know, but a good one to envision.
As long as you end the podcast with.
"Goodbye Friends".....
Nck
Why doesn't this banned blog do a podcast? Move with the times?
Oh of course you cannot because everyone would hear your voice....double life living would be exposed by a podcast.
"Oh of course you cannot because everyone would hear your voice....double life living would be exposed by a podcast."
Ho hum...my name is known. Next...
RSK wrote:
"Not sure theres much of an audience for it, but still a good project."
You're right of course, there is only a small specific group who will be interested (although we make an attempt to expand the concept to "cults" in general). Still, I believe not every endeavor needs to be world-shaking or viral :)
"When they hear and see first-hand accounts of people who have left and who have not been struck dead by some angry god, as they have been led to believe.."
This is important. At least it would have positively affected me, when I was a member, to to know more people who left WCG and yet were normal, well-adjusted and happy people.
Tonto wrote:
"The added audio clips from COG leaders give the podcast standing , provenance and proof. "
Great! Luckily these days there are a lot audio resources online, so people can actually hear what these guys actually say and said. Right from the horse's mouth :)
Anon wrote:
"Why doesn't this banned blog do a podcast? Move with the times? "
Sure, I'd love to get Gary involved, though I know running a blog is surely a full-time project in itself.
I like their point about HWA being equal, if not above Christ in members minds. So true. My ministers mentioned his name much more frequently than Christ's. Calling it the World Wide Church of Herbert W Armstrong would have been accurate.
Anonymous 4:44
The eclipsing importance of HWA should not surprise us. For years Rush Limbaugh was the most important person in evangelical Christianity. Guess who it is now.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Lol that's actually pretty funny
For years, I've stated that HWA's teachings and interpretation of the Bible were filtered by, and are therefore an extension of his own personality. This is something of which the teacher is usually unconscious, and it is somewhat similar in application to the principle of bias confirmation.
In practical application, an altruistic and somewhat benign personality will interpret and represent God as being altruistic and benign. Hypothetically, a somewhat charismatic flaming asshole would choose and accentuate scriptures that portray God as being a flaming asshole. And, of course, there you have the root problem of Armstrongism.
I listened to parts of the first audio. It was interesting to hear how these two vintage Eighties AC students reacted to their WCG/AC experience. They, or course, approach the topic from the critic's perspective. I am used to hearing the opposite and positive view from former AC students who were and continued to be avid followers of HWA. So for me this is a novel presentation. I have a couple of observations about the content that I heard.
There is an assumed cynicim in their account of the founding of the WCG. They assume that HWA did all of this as a kind of self-interested strategy. I raise that old question of "Was HWA sincere in what he did or was he just carrying out a personal business strategy?" Did it start in sincerity and become a dubious business later? Just exactly what happened? This is still an open question. My guess there are people who knew the early HWA and could speak to this issue but nobody ever has that I know of - at least it has never been published. This coloration of cynicism in the audio towards the WCG at its inception is based on the latter WCG that was eventually understood to lack theological orthodoxy - my guess.
Another point. Origins are important. I think it would be of extraordinary importance to establish the provenance of the WCG somewhere in the audio. I believe there are many Armstrongists (inspite of Hoeh's "A True History of the True Church") that believe that God spontaneously "raised up" the WCG after 18 and a half centuries of suppression of the true gospel. Instead, we must understand that Armstrongism is one of the many Millerite sects that cascaded from the Great Disappointment of 1844. And Armstrongism with its pre-occupation with end time prophecy maintains now a close similarity to William Miller's movement. And some of its principle points of theology come from the Church of God, Seventh Day - a Millerite sect. Armstrongism has staid and conventional history not miraculous spontaneity.
My two cents...
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Poor little Bob Thiel...
I'd like to see him kinda sorta demonstrate the possibility of attempting to call down some fire-like substance.
But Dave Pack, again preempting Bob, did not say he would be one of the two witnesses, but he would be training them. Unless he changed his mind again and will explain it in one of his next hundred sermons.
I’m interested to hear more. But please- the Handel’s Messiah in the background is quite distracting. And it takes away from the commentary.
Anon 11:06 "Oh of course you cannot because everyone would hear your voice....double life living would be exposed by a podcast."
I don't mean to be insulting, but only a shrouded mind (perhaps due to cultish programing), would miss the irony of saying this while remaining anonymous.
Perhaps you could start a network of former members who can get together in person and gripe or rehash their past lives. Then they can start protest groups and annoy the ministers by chanting slogans on the street where churches meet and giving the ministers the finger. This would be fun. Afterwards, go out for beer and bacon.
10.21 AM
Agree. I often had to strain to hear what they were saying.
I think at the beginning (about 1934, give or take) HWA was sincere but over time he chose the wrong road: the love of money rather than the love of the truth.
“I don't mean to be insulting, but only a shrouded mind (perhaps due to cultish programing), would miss the irony of saying this while remaining anonymous.”
Exactly! Every 6 months or some some anonymous person starts screeching about identities while playing anonymous.
Did HWA start out sincerely? According to the "Sardis Era" people who knew him, he was a liar from the start.
I wish to comment on some of the points mentioned in Podcast, Part 1.
1. HWA, a high school dropout being at the right time and right place in the 1920s-30s. HWA's unique radio voice coupled with his convincing advertising,writing skills was enough to get the fledgling Radio Church of God going on to become a powerful influence in WCG even though never having more than 150,000 members. Is God behind this growth?
2. The unique teaching of HWA's doctrine of man to become God as God is. One or two individual may have taught this before HWA but it was HWA who taught it openly and widely with power and authority. No other church taught it. Is God behind this teaching?
3. The about turn from Armstrongism to Protestant. Another unique event that is unheard of. No other cult or denomination ever turn from their dogmatic teaching to mainstream teaching. Is this change prophesied?
I find it very ironical that the more criticism that is made of Armstrongism (the term for HWA,RCG/WCG, AC, 1934-95), the more convincing it is to me that God inspired him into starting an end time work but HWA departed from God by changing doctrines, starting in 1974 and culminated in the 1995 renunciation of Armstrongism.
It is the message that counts, not the messenger. HWA just brought a message from God and he delivered it with authority for 40 years. Then he changed God's doctrines in 1974 and the rest is history. HWA is not perfect. Nobody is. Is God behind HWA's message?
The answers to all my questions is a big affirmative YES.
Years ago I sent a letter to the Church of God 7th Day asking about HWA. One person said that HWA was the type of person who couldn't work with others and had to be the boss. The conflict and separation was more about personalities than doctrine. But doctrinal differences had to be given as the cause. If I recall, HWA said that when he was young he wanted to be a big man, an important man in the world. I don't think he ever lost that desire. Loma may have kept him in line, but after her death there was no one to moderate his behavior. But is he wanted to create a church and get rich, why did he include such draconian teachings as D & R, no doctors and the more difficult holy days? Could he have gathered more followers (and more money) if he didn't make it so damn difficult for some people to join? And wouldn't he have fewer critics? But, perhaps he felt that by making it difficult he was only going to get the "true believers" who he could better control. I was in for 4 years, spent two at AC in the early 70's. I'm glad I was in and glad that I left. The good thing about being in was it was at AC that I met my wife of over 47 happy years. Plus I am sort of immunized against the false teachers, knowing what I know today. I walked away from the WCG, then later all church organizations and simply teach the Bible to pastors on short term mission trips to Tanzania and Kenya (all at my own expense) and teach in a small group in our home. I am one of those who are DONE with the organized church but not Christianity. When at AC I wished I could have been called into the ministry. Thank God for unanswered prayer. I feel bad for those who gave up so much for so long while they were in the WCG.
Rush never was the most important. He certainly had a platform that a decent percentage of Christians supported, but many didn’t, and many more thought he was too much and only marginally supported thinking him arrogant.
Regarding “who it is now”, there are mixed opinions throughout christians and the fact of the matter is that he did deliver on his platform. While the morality of the Prez matters, what he DOES is what matters most in an executive. And as I’ve said before Trump in office had better behavior than multiple Presidents I can name.
If he was sincere it was probably an exuberance based in having found a way to make a name for himself, for finally proving himself as special in his own mind. This was a major driver in his preWCG life as repeatedly exemplified in his autobiography.
Sincere about “what” is the question…he seemed to come sincerely about his sabbath belief…but was this also helped along by his desire to distinguish himself from other msinstream christians. Thereafter, his focus was to differentiate himself from established Christianity and find his niche. He was special now. We all want some special attribute recognized I suppose, but it was overwhelming in hwa and I believe dominated and decimated the sincerity he may have had.
Around the 24 minute mark in episode 1, you men talk about the 'God Family doctrine', "to become God, as God is", and mentioned never hearing anyone else teach it, and it's probably unique to Armstrong... the doctrine comes from Mormonism (he stole that doctrine too) Surprise!
mrm.org/exaltation
mrm.org/becoming-like-god
It never ceases to amaze me that people have a desperate need to find something salvageable from the complete waste of the portion of their lives devoted to Armstrongism. In actual fact, that time is gone, totally burned, just as surely as it would be had a person been a heroin addict, or hopeless alcoholic. There was no baby, and the water was sewer water, not bathwater. Best to get over it and to forget all about it, and resolve never to get fooled again.
Anon 6:45 is a member of Church of God Eternal led by Jon Bribesy. Look at the statement that apostasy started in 1974 that was a big Raymond Cole teaching and is a big part of Bribesy teachings.
The bible says that the first fruits will be kings and priests
There's no mention of "becoming God as God is God." That's pure lying marketing on the part of Herb. It's like "buy toothpaste X, recommended by 9 out of 10 dentists. It has ingredient Z which gives the whitest of white smiles."
and the mormons don't believe the doctrine of the trinity either...so did HWA "steal" that too?
or, maybe he taught those things because it's what the bible says.
Anon at 9:26 PM PST,
I am Anon 6:45PM PST. I had wanted to include Mormonism's teaching of man to become God as God is as not the same as what HWA taught. I wish I had mentioned it, knowing someone would point out that HWA copied from the Mormons.
HWA's doctrine of man to become God as God is NOT the same as the Mormon's teaching on this topic. HWA's understanding is straight forward using the example found in John 3, the meaning of being born again. God's truth is simple.
Anonymous 6:45
I believe your response is an excellent specimen of Armstrongist thought. I do not mean that critically. Rather it is the case that you have clearly written what you believe on points 1 and 2. I would like to respond, keyed by number to your statements:
1. This is circumstantial. The fact that HWA was a good salesman does not mean that his ascendancy was brought about by God. One must look at the content of what he said. As Jesus observed, "Therefore by their fruits you will know them."
2. HWA's idea of man becoming God as God is God is in error. The idea of Theosis or Sanctification or Diviinization has been advanced by the Christian movement for centuries. HWA added to this pre-existing doctrine the idea that man would literally become God. There is no credible exegesis for this. That becoming literally God would even enter HWA's mind is dependent on two issues. He did not believe in the infinite God but rather a god recast with humanistic attributes because he took literally the anthropomorphisms in the Old Testament. And he misinterpreted the "Image" of God as being God reproducing after his kind (equating spiritual "image" with biological "kind") when this is not what Genesis means. He applied to biology of Genesis to God in correctingly and "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
3. I cannot tell what you are saying here. I believe that you are seeing a forsaking of true and original Armstrongism by the WCG for Protestant belief. You later state "Then he (HWA I assume) changed God's doctrines in 1974 and the rest is history." I assume you are referring to HWA forsaking the truth around 1974. I have no idea how to interpet this reference. I do believe GTA left circa 1974. Armstrongism has never remotely resembled Protestantism and it does not today.
My guess is that you left the WCG sometime near 1974 for reasons you do not specify. You must have found some other leader to replace HWA in your life and you believe in a fossilized version of Armstrongism. You believe in the early Herbert but not the later Herbert. I think you are long overdue to reconsider.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Earl 8:59
Rush may not have been the philosophical fount for the Republican Party and White Evangelicalism but he gave their ideas ideological leadership and media persona. As one writer for "Religious Dispatches" states:
"The truth is, many conservative Christians embraced Rush Limbaugh because they had already embraced a faith that championed an us-vs.-them militancy, the denigration of liberals and feminists, the sexual objectification of women, an appreciation for coarse language and even violence when directed at the right targets, and a thinly veiled misogyny that kept women in their (God-given) place."
The description above comports nicely with what Paul calls "the carnal man" of the right-wing variety. There is, of course, a left-wing version. And the great Cyrus of prophecy did not deliver on his platform as you maintain. I do not see a wall. I do not see an readily available and affordable healthcare plan for all Americans that is way better than Obamacare - cheaper with better benefits. What I see is a divided country and an attempt to overthrow the constituted government of the United States. This is not stuff done under a bushel.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Maybe Pack , Flurry, Thiel , Weinaland et al can by advertising space commercials on the podcast?? LOL! :-)
If my understanding is correct, the closest thing to an original thought in Armstrong doctrine is the "spirit of/in man" he proposed in the early 1970s and attributed to Robert L. Kuhn. Although Dr. Kuhn wrote the series of PT of articles explaining it, Dr. Kuhn denied that it was his idea, or that he thought of it independently of HWA.
Yah. Started with duck meat and Pentecost, right?
A relative of mine introduced me to the Rush Limbaugh program back in the early 1990's. The comedic aspects of Rush's presentations were initially amusing. When hyping the EIB, he actually referred to his "cutting edge comedy." Over the weeks, Rush's propensity for ad hominem attacks became quite annoying, and I felt that they were also destructive, especially as I began to hear them repeated and "lovingly" parrotted on the street by the self-called dittoheads.
Having been familiar with the religious right in the seventies, I felt that they were a grave danger to our democracy, because they were attempting to assert control in ways that curtailed the average guy on the street's freedoms. They really wanted the USA to be a theocracy. So, I was quite put off to learn that Rush not only gave credence to these people, but also embraced them. That struck me as being dangerous, especially because the more fanatical amongst them were really not that different from the radical Islamic types who were involved in so many blatantly insane terrorist activities around the globe. There were even instances of radical right wing Christians bombing womens' health clinics in the news at that time, and many of the separatist militia groups referred to themselves as Christian patriots.
Rush was adamant about destroying a time honored practice of our democracy, which was the ability of our representatives to come together for the greater good through compromise. I realized that if this ever became the accepted norm of debate or legislation that it would result in a bitter power struggle, and authoritarian enforcement of political agendas. And then, in January 2017, my greatest fears actually became reality. Rush's influence had been taken to its only possible conclusion. And, then, it seemed impossible that we could throw off and get rid of these people and return to any sort of normalcy. In fact, I don't believe that even now we have gotten rid of them. My fear is that the despots will come back harder and stronger than ever, bringing totalitarianism into the American mainstream. Because they claim to be for freedom, and because they call themselves patriotic, their followers will not realize what is truly happening until it's too late. Actually, it is most likely too late already. I'm just trying to savor what little time we have left. Thanks a lot, Rush!!!
neo,
He did build a long stretch of wall and in some of the more heavily trafficked areas (I know, I know), but was stymied and probably lost the desire to keep pushing that. He should have finished it as having a large number of people pouring through a border is unwise for any country. I kinda suspect the hard working Christian Mexicans that come across the border are actually going to see the opportunities and begin identifying as conservative rather than socialist (this is already beginning to occur). They may well save our country yet! :)
His being President did further divide the country as did Obama's rhetoric. He was lied about and demonized, but his reputation helped it stick for a reason. I'm not concerned by mean tweets and believe that his morality while Prez was better than that of most Presidents. I'd prefer he not run again.
Neotherm wrote:
" They, or course, approach the topic from the critic's perspective. I am used to hearing the opposite and positive view from former AC students"
Yes we're vaguely aware of being in the minority of AC grads who think, well, let's just say it leaves much to be desired as a college education.. :)
". I think it would be of extraordinary importance to establish the provenance of the WCG somewhere in the audio. "
We actually did refer to Loma's being associated with the 7th-Day group and Herbert's brief association with them until he broke away to start his own church. We didn't go so far back as 1844, though.
Anon wrote:
"I’m interested to hear more. But please- the Handel’s Messiah in the background is quite distracting. "
I've found that liking or not liking music in the background is a personal preference that varies depending on the listener. For this podcast that's the decision we made. Sorry you find it distracting - perhaps we'll further adjust volume levels in the future.
Anon wrote:
"Years ago I sent a letter to the Church of God 7th Day asking about HWA. One person said that HWA was the type of person who couldn't work with others and had to be the boss."
That's interesting, and totally what I would have expected they would relate about HWA.
"When at AC I wished I could have been called into the ministry. Thank God for unanswered prayer. "
Haha... Unfortunately some people had such prayers answered.
Anon wrote:
"to become God, as God is", and mentioned never hearing anyone else teach it, and it's probably unique to Armstrong... the doctrine comes from Mormonism (he stole that doctrine too) "
Well he probably did get the original idea from the Mormons in the sense of becoming "gods", powerful and all, but I kind of thought the Mormons' idea was becoming "gods", lower case, not really the "God family" as HWA would always present it - part of the royal line as it were. But then again I'm no expert on Mormon theology :)
Tonto wrote:
"Maybe Pack , Flurry, Thiel , Weinaland et al can by advertising space commercials on the podcast?? LOL! :-) "
Ha - well, if we ever do get around to tackling the splinter groups, they won't need to buy advertising because they'll have the spotlight squarely upon them!
So much pure speculation propounded as fact, by so many who think they are so qualified, to criticize one individual, makes for watching a “Twilight Zone” program in black and white over how the human mind can believe in consensus fantasy while breathing underwater while on Mars after getting there on a skateboard.
So many upchucking authorities filling a bucket with “I wasn’t there, BUT he must have said/thought/believed/copied/plagiarized/etc.” because I/we unadmittedly don’t have a clue about what we are talking about. BUT, because of that we must be right because we cannot conceive of a positive alternative.
The British had a perfect comedy show in the 1950’s, with Peter Sellers, that absolutely pictures this Podcast discussion. Everyone here should listen to an episode right away. It was called “The GOON Show.”
Sorry, but that’s a fact. Just like atheists, critics, gossips etc. read a sentence in history, totally misinterpret it, and then say the individuals in that part of history believed what the made up misinformation was, then attack the individuals and the misinterpretation just made up by the critics, as fact. Neo, for instance has no clue what the “God” family teaching really was, and what it was based on. Neither do the 2 pseudo-witnesses from the mid 1980’s, well after the WCG had already been infiltrated.
@Anon 2:55
Since you bring up the question of qualifications & authority...
What makes you qualified on this topic?
Whose hands were laid on you to give you authority to dicern this matter?
Anonymous 2:55 wrote, "Neo, for instance has no clue what the “God” family teaching really was, and what it was based on."
You again. Mr. Gaslight. So tell us about the "God family teaching."
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
5.43 AM
"maybe he taught those those things because it's what the bible says."
If you look at what HWA taught, he only cherry picked the bible. The "unity" that he kept pushing is a commie theme. It's used as the justification to lord it over members faith and stomp on members rights. Likewise the common church and commie expression "human nature needs to change." Communism would work if only people were very different to what they are. Forget that man is made in Gods mental image. HWA rejected the bibles command to not lord it over the flock, embracing totalitarianism instead. He rejected rights, assertiveness and that relationships be are two way rather than one way.
HWAs teachings are very much a hybrid of truth and be error, picking from the bible, communism and Kenneth Copeland Christianity.
When I attended services, self help books were the church rage since members perceived that they weren't being morally fed, or were being fed garbage.
Neo, one of the two great COG prophets, is still pushing his doom and gloom predictions.
Neo has predicted a race war, spitting-mad white hosts who hate invading brown hoards, and now he prognosticates "What I see is a divided country and an attempt to overthrow the constituted government of the United States."
He sounds a lot like old Herbie or one of the splinter leaders, or any one of countless COG articles that have predicted the destruction of the US.
I don't believe any of the Prophet Neo's fearmongering will come to pass as he has prophesied; but, if it does, the Prophet Neo is documented to be among those who are recklessly pushing division rater than sowing peace.
While I believe in free speech, I'm almost pushed to the limits with the Prophet Neo's incessant harping about Trump.
I wish we could all enjoy the peace that should have resulted from Trump being removed from center stage.
I suspect that the Prophet Neo has some personal insight into the best way to retaliate against a melomaniac, such as Trump, is to ignore him.
Yet some can find the inclination to perpetuate fear and hatred to be irresistible.
Ah, Neo Therm, passing the buck again, and stooping to name calling are we? Why am I not surprised?
Explain to you the real explanation of the “God” teaching? You’ve got to be kidding. Do what you should have done long ago and put in the long hours of deep study learning something before you criticize it with your false, poorly done misinterpretation, which is not what HWA taught. Then there might be something to discuss. Besides, why should I do your work for you?
Why don’t you just clearly explain to us what YOU THINK the teaching is, and where it came from? That way you won’t be able to tap dance your way out of your fake interpretation when the correct teaching is learned.
Then, and only then, one can pass judgment on whether it is a correct biblical teaching or not.
Might be a better use of our time to study scripture and pray instead of dwelling on the past. Make corrections, hold fast to the good and move on. We certainly have a lot to correct from WWCG days. At least we learned to leave behind the lies of christmas, easter, halloween and many mainline evangelical leanings. However there was too much Bullinger reliance in the WWCG.
5:06 said:
HWAs teachings are very much a hybrid of truth and be error, picking from the bible, communism and Kenneth Copeland Christianity.
When I attended services, self help books were the church rage since members perceived that they weren't being morally fed, or were being fed garbage.
==============================
You do know that Copeland’s ministry came along after Armstrong’s, right?
And, if you needed self help books then, you were right, for by that time the sermons, etc. had long gone down hill. Besides, before your time the sermons were good, and self help books were criticized by the church and college.
As for communism, that’s nonsense. Besides, don’t you know Marion McNair claimed Armstrong kept a copy of Mein Kampf in his desk drawer to read how to control the sheep?
5:44, I feel sorry for you. You can't see the nose on your face! White nationalists were uncancelled, and let out of the bag back at C'ville. NEO isn't the only one concerned about the disturbing implications of their sudden new acceptability. They cloak their intentions through euphemisms such as "loss of our national culture". You need to go back and study the rise of Aryanism, and the ascent of Hitler. If these wretches succeed in recovering from "our country was stolen from us in the 2020 election, and regain power, we will most definitely see ethnic cleansing here in the USA, and the world will turn on us as HWA predicted. Funny it is happening through HWA's favorite political party, but you could say that that has been stolen and subverted. It ain't Ronnie Ray Gun's GOP any more. ACOG "prophets" ought to put that in their pipes and smoke it.
9.55 PM
I have watched most tele evangelists such as Joyce Meyer, Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Jesse Duplantis etc, and Kenneth Copeland is typical. The differences in their theology is cosmetic. HWA spent eleven years in COG7, so he copied from them rather than the other way around. I've been reading church literature since 1965, and the material has always been consistent. You "good" sermons could not have been meaty. Yes, self help books were denounced from the pulpit. The ministers wanted the sheep kept ignorant and dependent on the lording ministry. This business model is contrary to Christ telling Peter three times to "feed my sheep," and is a major factor in HWAs empire splintering and shrinking after his death.
The ACOGs all condemn communism, but if you observe their fruits, there are great similarities. What political ideology conforms to a hierarchical lording government that rejects rights and treats its members as chattel?
Anonymous of December 14, 2021 at 11:16:00: I'm sure you missed my point - because you are mindlessly following the Polarized Prophet Neo.
Yes, there are too many horribly evil people on the right, on the left, and of no political persuasion, in our country.
However, the majority of the nation is rational and peace loving.
All extreme polarization, such as that displayed by your prophet or by Trump, foments the trouble and hatred that could lead to the Polarized Prophet's doom and gloom predictions moving toward fulfillment.
It's best to shelve the megalomaniacs and promote peace.
Anonymous 9:43 The Artless Dodger
I know the Armstrongist view and I know the orthodox view. I don't believe you know either one. It is time to put up or shut up.
********** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
You had no viable point, 3:43. You, the accuser, are in fact the flame fanner! NEO is a prolific contributor here on Banned, with some thought provoking ideas. He is not a guru we mindlessly follow, as we already learned that lesson courtesy of Herbert W. Armstrong. I don't always agree with NEO, however, in this case he is right, and it is appropriate that he would warn people to wake up, so that worst case can be averted. None of us want to imagine the USA as Fourth Reich, but certain trends are undeniable and very disturbing.
You also know very little about human nature. Peaceful, rational people are very easily overrun by bullies, tyrants, and dictators. Joe Biden may be our president, but evil forces are stacking the decks behind the scenes to usher in the continuation of a very evil, antidemocratic agenda. Moderate people need to speak up and to repudiate the radicals who have co-opted both of our political parties. The false dichotomy being presented is that one must choose between one radical party, or the other. Are you one of those who has bought into the idea that the guys rolling coal in their big pickups with the flags are patriots preserving our freedoms?
Jon Brisby is covertly trolling this thread.
He should be pastoring his sheep,
but he is trying to win internet debates instead.
One by one members are leaving,
because in his cult they're not being fed.
At this rate of numbers dwindling,
soon his little cult will be dead.
#BadTreeBearsBadFruit
Neo the Therm said:
I know the Armstrongist view and I know the orthodox view. I don't believe you know either one. It is time to put up or shut up.
===========================
That’s your problem Neo, the fake authority on HWA. You claim to know what you call “Armstrongism “ and the “orthodox “ view, but you don’t know the bible. All you present is your view which is warped to say the least.
Virtually nothing you write about HWA is accurate, just your twisted view of what you think you read or heard in the past/present.
The only reason you call it “Armstrongism “ is you think it puts what you claim on a higher level than those lowly “Armstrongists.” Read any book on how to win every argument and one of the first lessons is, make your opponent look bad in the eyes of your audience first. Typical ploy of atheists and xtians. Same coin, two sides.
And, if you read further you will find that naming a religious group by its leader’s name, is highly recommended as this makes the audience look down on that group. Also, using the label “cult” does the same thing, for a certain psychological reason based on how the subconscious mind works.
All ploys of deception needed by those whose arguments can’t stand on their own two feet. Lots of that here. Minions, hirelings, communism, perverts, pedophiles, incest, suicides, etc. etc. etc. Just read all the posts here and make a list of the false slurs written by the gossip gang. Oh, to read here the wcg was a plague of suiceds. Yet, from the list on the really Painful site, over a 59 year period there was an average of .9 suicides per year. Compare that with atheist or christian groups over the same number of years. Any suicide is bad, but over exaggerating is not truth telling.
Lots of claims with mostly hearsay “proof” here, just like yours Neoism.
Anonymous 9:03
Very artless dodge. Bye.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Oh, Banned caught the attention of the Duck Meat COG? Ok,theres a poll for Gary... who likes duck meat?
Permit me to clarify the reasons why I, as one individual, use the descriptive label "Armstrongism" in all of our discussions here.
1) To facilitate civility in discourse. You see, in my real life, away from the keyboard, I always use the term "shit" to describe the religion of Herbert W. Arnstrong. Because I understand that that most accurate of words might offend the sensitivities of ACOG members who rebel against their leaders and visit here, I use the innocuous euphemism "Armstrongism" to avoid offending them.
2) ACOG members use the term "God's Church", or sometimes "God's True Church". In fact, they are not prepared to accept any term which they consider less than that superlative. The problem is that that label is an editorial slant,, a deep-seated opinion which they themselves believe to be factual in spite of an abundance of factual material and evidence to the contrary, and the collective experiences of the majority of regular contributors to this blog. So, we name the belief system after the individual through whom we learned it. This is a more precise and vastly more accurate descriptive.
3) I cannot, in good conscience, utilize the phrase "God's Church" on the ACOG belief system. The fact that it is such a defective and toxic product demands that we simply cannot call it that. Even the myriad splinter groups differ from one another, while all calling their own splinter "God's Church". This is where it all breaks down and becomes so ridiculous. Still, we have to have a name for the system which we are discussing. Using the term "Armstrongism" implies that the belief system is man-concocted, and reminds readers that it is not God-made, unless of course you are referring to the "god" that is a by-product of Herbert W. Armstrong's anthropomorphism.
Over the years, others have already gone back to the sources for the various tenets of Armstrongism to "prove" that it predates HWA. However, it was HWA who borrowed and combined the ingredients from those various sources into the amalgam we know today as Armstrongism. Others have even attempted to dust off their copies of the debunked "A True History of the True Church". Pulease! We have authentic students of history amongst us who have pointed out all the areas of this booklet where Hisloppian leaps were made from cherry-picked, out of context quotations, to establish a dubious chain of "Armstrongites" dating back from the first century forward.
Seems like some of the Armstrongites want us to be "woke" and sensitized towards them, but I ain't goin' for that!
To quote Jesse Ventura, “Get a load of these guys!”
I’ll help you all out here:
hwa was a scoundrel and he caused a great deal of pain while teaching false doctrine and false prophecies.
White nationalism is minuscule and the least of our problems.
There, now sanity again reigns. You’re welcome.
Anonymous 12/15 @ 9:03,
While there have been a few individuals (like the late Ian Boyne) who have sought to defend Armstrongism with a thoughtful and knowledgeable approach to Scripture, the vast majority of Armstrong apologists have been more like you: Attack the attacker! (Reminds us of a recent political leader's strategy.) Nothing of substance is offered in rebuttal: NO logic, no reasoning, no knowledge of the subject matter - just angry name calling (and plenty of it). You accuse the critics of Armstrongism who post here of being "atheists, minions, hirelings, communism (I think you meant communists), perverts, pedophiles, etc." Instead, if you really believe in this sh-t, why don't you explain why you think it's true - why it's inappropriate to characterize this mess as a cult?
I (along with many of the other folks who comment here, including our friend NEO) have posted numerous treatises loaded with an abundance of Scriptural, historical and scholarly references disproving many of the key doctrines of Armstrongism. Where is your answer to these challenges? You like to call other folks names; but, if you don't want to be viewed here as ignorant and delusional, you may want to reconsider your approach to Armstrong apologetics!
Miller Jones said:
You accuse the critics of Armstrongism who post here of being "atheists, minions, hirelings, communism (I think you meant communists), perverts, pedophiles, etc." Instead, if you really believe in this sh-t, why don't you explain why you think it's true - why it's inappropriate to characterize this mess as a cult?
================================
No, that is not what I said. I said to read the posts here by the critics and you would see the slurs hurled by the likes of you, Neoism, etal. I did NOT call the critics those names. They are the words used by those, like yourself, criticizing HWA. Look at the words they use Miller, and you will see even worse ones. Including you just now.
As your post shows, you folks like to dish it out, but you certainly can’t handle the truth about yourselves at all. Oh, and even your s—- word clearly shows what I was talking about. Thanks for the example.
I’m not interested in teaching the unteachables here.
Also, I am not defending HWA, in the way you think. He disqualified himself in certain biblical ways. However, I am sick and tired of the injustices done on this site, and some others, by presenting false info, misrepresentation, exaggeration, and arguing that as fact. Also, implying that those being attacked here “must think this and that” when no one knows that for a fact. Like cog this or that are happy for calamities to others because it makes their point of prophecy sound good. That is totally ridiculous.
It is one thing to present the facts and refute them. It is injustice to distort the facts, imply motives and evil intent when that is only in the mind of the critic. And, then refute that, instead of what the fact was. That is bearing false witness, which the critics here are doing.
Please, next time Miller Jones, read what I really said, and watch your language.
Here’s what I wrote: “Just read all the posts here and make a list of the false slurs written by the gossip gang.”
3:58:00 PM PST What makes you qualified on this topic?
Whose hands were laid on you to give you authority to dicern this matter?
================================
Excellent question. Why am I qualified?
I was there, before most of the people here were born, based on the site poll.
I know most of the people being criticized here, personally
I was near, or in most of the events mentioned. For example, the college/church jets. After finishing my flight training, while at ac, for private pilot, I was asked by Hugh Mauck, my boss, to fly an errand for him. Got there and back so fast it surprised him. Well, noting that I called Cessna aircraft for info on their new Citation jet. Got it, sent it to Al Portune who passed it on. About six weeks later, I was pleasantly surprised to hear a jet was on order, but not the Citation.
Played basketball with Ted Armstrong and others after work. The lie told by a certain individual that Ted was all up tight because he wasn’t as good as the college team is nonsense, like the rest of her story.
Ate with the ministry in their dining room at the FoT in Big Sandy. Not the conversations you’ve been lead to believe by the critics.
Was in Dr. Dorothy’s greek class during time he was researching the greek text for Herbert Armstrong to find out if it supported the Spirit in Man understanding that had come up. Dr. Dorothy finally submitted his research in a paper titled Seven Reasons The Greek Supports a Spirit in Man Doctrine.
And more, including writing for Herman Hoeh for PT and GN magazines.
Spent many hours with David Jon Hill at his home. Worked with Vern Mattson, was a Dept. Head., etc. etc. Put the finishing touches on the weekly report on the growth of “the work” read by the ministry each week at bible studies.
Personal close friend of Marion McNair. Worked. with him on his book and letter about Ted to Herbert Armstrong. We used to go flying together and that encouraged him to get his license and start a flying business in Florida.
Was there when Oral Roberts visited AC. Guess who his jet pilot was?
So, there’s much more I could list, including knowing personally, Herbert W. Armstrong, Loma Armstrong, Ramona Martin, Dr. C. Paul Meredith, Rod Meredith, Richard Ames and his wife, etc. etc. etc.
Most of this since 1955. I began studying the bible in 1953.
So, I don’t need someone to lay hands on me to give me the authority to speak from living experience that most here don’t have.
Tuesday, December 14, 2021 at 3:58:00 PM PST
Anon at 9:42 PM,
You gave a knock out punch on your critic(s). Thank you.
As an ex WCG member since the mid 1970s but now a listener/reader of Raymond Cole's Church of God, Eternal, I want to know if you were close to Raymond Cole?
OK, Gramps. So you're one of the good ol' boys. We're so not worthy! (Lighten up, that was just a bit of Wayne's world humor,)
Look, over the past decades we have learned many things about the movement (oops, there's the "S" word again!) from those of your colleagues who finally came clean. They wrote what they wrote under their own names so that there was no mystery, and this added considerably to their credibility. As of now, all we know about you is that you dropped a bunch of names. Unfortunately for you, anyone familiar with the organization can do that. Why don't you come clean, tell us who you are, so that we can start at the beginning, which would be establishing your credibility.
1955? My personal feelings are that your life would have been much better if you had only gotten into Elvis at that time, but that's just me.
Anonymous 12/15 @ 8:53,
I think that most of the folks here can read for themselves the comments that we both made and judge for themselves between them, and I am happy to leave it in their hands. You may wish to reread what you wrote, and you may wish to peruse some of my posts on Sabbath and Festival observance, British Israelism, Disfellowshipping (not a single person took up my challenge to refute my Scriptural points), Christmas and paganism, the Gospel, the Church, Biblical inerrancy, etc. They're all detailed and loaded with references. Put up or shut up! Try to demonstrate that ANY of those are just "false slurs."
Does anyone have Marion McNair's book in front of them? If so, does he credit in anyway any of his former colleagues from AC/WCG.
Anybody remember who was on the faculty basketball team during the '50s and '60s? I recall GTA, (deceased), Richard Plache (deceased),
Jim Thornhill (deceased), and Jim Petty, but my memory blanks out after that.
Pilots in the org were few and well known back then. Anyone recall any department heads who flew?
if someone had entered AC in '55 as a 20 year old, they'd be 86 now. Allen, do you still read here, and can you help us out?
No harm intended to the name dropper. Would be helpful to know who he might be thoough.
Anonymous 8:53 wrote, "you would see the slurs hurled by the likes of you, Neoism, etal."
This is an odd little piece of self-serving spin. "Neoism" is actually orthodox Christianity. What I write about doctrine can be found in the pages of Christian systematic theologies. What I write about Armstrongism I have personally experienced or I have found in the various online archives of HWA's writings. And, of course, the Bible is the Bible. That Anonymous 8:53 would characterize this as rhetorical malfeasance dubbed Neoism is, well, draw your own conclusion.
In a later comment, Anonymous 8:53 cited his extensive record of cult activities and contacts as if that were a portfolio of qalifications and credentials. I, too, am connected to Herbert Armstrong, Loma Armstrong, GTA, Betty Dillon, Ambassador College, etc. Any such connections lend no validity to my theological views. Just as the "credentials" of Anonymous 8:53 lend no substance to his theological views. He cannot dodge behind this kind of mundane portfolio to avoid rational debate. That's vanity.
Actually, much of what he writes is "presenting false info, misrepresentation, exaggeration, and arguing that as fact" with a strong tenor of arrogance. The term currently in favor for this is "gaslighting."
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
12:35 said:
Why don't you come clean, tell us who you are, so that we can start at the beginning, which would be establishing your credibility.
================
Why, that’s very informative. Why don’t you and all the other anons here start first? You folks say all kinds of fake stuff, but the only one who needs to name himself is the one who challenges the ignorance here. You folks afraid of taking responsibility for your lies, distortions, exaggerations, rumors, and fantasies?
Follow your own advice. Set us the example.
Neoist of Neoism said:
Follow your own advice. Set us the example.
=================================
Really more interesting now that all the anons here want me to give my name while they all hide theirs. Typical “Don’t do as we do, do as we say.” Also, typical cowardice of those not willing to take responsibility for their own delusions.
And, oh, by the way Neoist, what happened to your very dogmatic BYE? I knew you couldn’t resist. Not even slightly surprised.
By the way, why do you hide your real name here? In my case, I’m just following everyone else’s example.I’m doing as you DO, not obligated to do what you say. Everyone here has already set the example.
It’s still a great day, and I feel healthy, happy and terrific, how bout youse guys and gals?
12:17 said:
I want to know if you were close to Raymond Cole?
======================================
No, I was not close to him. I did hear some of his sermons when he visited the college from his church duties.
I did know Leroy Cole personally, a younger brother as I recall.
Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 12:17:00 AM PST
Thursday, December 16, 2021 at 7:51:00 AM PST by Neoist:
Neoist, nice comeback after saying Bye. Too bad you couldn’t come up with your own words to try and refute me. So, thanks for plagiarizing my words to use against me.
So, how much time did you spend in Pasadena with those people?
When did you go to Ambassador in Big Sandy?
Ever have personal private discussions with those you love to now criticize?
Ever spend hours with Ted after he left left, and discuss what was life like for him, and why he had to leave, etc.?
Ever spend time with him at El Monte airport discussing loving to fly? You know, hours and hours of shear bordom, interspersed by stark terror?
Remember when he flew into Big Sandy with his Dad on board and the loud banging the plane made on final?
Remember the private discussions Ken Westby, Walter Sharp, and Paul Zaph had after flying back from the meeting of ministers when Ted admitted his problems? I was invited to their meeting. It wasn’t pretty. Remember that?
Remember when discussing with Ernest Martin some of his teachings after his leaving? Just him, me, and my friend Alan?
Ever fly back to Pasadena during FoT to try keep the mail pickups current, and deposit the checks in the bank, so people didn’t have to wait for their orders too long.
Ever see the checks sent in by ministers, including GTA, for donations, tithes, etc.?
And, lots more?
Having more fun here than a human being should have. Keep ‘em comin’.
There were some reasonably nice people in classic WCG/AC, and there were some flaming buttholes. All that I am attempting to establish is which category you fell into back in the day. If I knew that you had been one of the good guys, I would most likely take your criticisms more seriously, even though I also realize that people can and do change with time. I've often offered negative comments here myself regarding ad hominem attacks against others, and have exhorted posters to "get them the clean way" by using truth against them.
This blog is not a monolith. There is great diversity of opinion, and there are numerous good people. We've also seen our share of trolls, and people who seem to delight in arguing.
I also believe that people who once occupied positions of responsibility in the Armstrong empire, and have seen the error inherent in that, have a responsibility to expose the evil they witnessed first hand, so that others can be assisted in their own efforts to escape and salvage what is left of their lives.
Anonymous 3:30 wrote, "Neoist, nice comeback after saying Bye"
I can come back when I want to. You have no say in that. I am not in the least impressed by all the empty things you have done in dubious service to HWA. It proves nothing and it is shallow of you to believe that it does. You seem to have not gotten the point I made at all - your "rebuttal" is totally inappropriate for my challenge.
My guess is that you are an older person who is suffering from dementia. You do not seem to have the capacity to follow logical discourse. I say that with sympathy. My guess is the reason you repeatedly dodge out of debate is because you no longer have the ability to mentally organize a fitting response. It is unfortunate that you did not become a Christian before you began to lose your cognitive skills.
I wish the best for you. I hope you can get some help.
Note: I cannot be certain who I am writing to. Some of our parasitic trolls may have interjected a faux comment into the dialogue.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Well, we could have had such great and positive discussions about the problems from the past. But, it’s easier to cling to the distortions I guess. Too many here seem too closed minded to desire knowing the inner workings of how some of those things happened. Like, why did Dr. C. Paul Meredith’s wife, and two or three others at the time die, when they should not have? The answer is simple, and he told me. But who cares here, since this was one of the events that brought negative responses in the church about the healing doctrine, and weakened faith? So simple, and if it had been explained to members then, things would have been different. Oh, well.
So much for hopes and expectations. Every Friday evening at Manor del Mar, we guys had a snack and bible session. We discussed all kinds of doctrines and bible topics. And, it got intense at times. David Jon Hill, and a few other ministers ministers would show up. Not to teach or lead the study but to enjoy an evening discussing the bible and snacks. We called it the Friday Night Bull Session. Yes, I know how that will be twisted here, and if so, will clearly show the mindset of the critics.
Explaining what HWA would do before each radio broadcast would be interesting, maybe, as it would help people understand how he had so much energy during the broadcast.
What simple little thing would the lead sermon minister do before giving the sermon during the feast days? This would help keep his voice up and strong during the long sermon. But, that’s not dirt enough for here.
Where was HWA’s home in Tucson? And, where was Ramona’s business there? Nothing important.
When I first told my college friend Alan what Ted Armstrong had done, he got mad at me first, then later the impact finally got to him.
When Marion visited me at my home on the East Coast, we discussed those things. He asked me to give him input on his book, and letter he planned to send HWA. An interesting thing from the pov of how the book and letter was presented.
So much, not now to be discussed. I Thought for awhile they could be here. But, it’s too different and strong for made up minds here. So, to please the know it alls here I will cease and desist with these topics, and just, maybe, watch the show.
I still feel healthy, happy, and terrific, for Yah has “made my day!”
Say goodnight Gracie…
Anonymous Armstrong Apologist,
After rereading your collective posts (including the final one of 12/16 @ 9:21), I can now see that you meant to suggest that the name-calling was being done by the folks who were/are critical of Armstrongism. This underscores the problem with "Anonymous" posting (just choose a moniker folks - it's not that hard) - the potential for misinterpreting what is being said (especially when some notion is presented in an inarticulate way) is magnified exponentially. At any rate, your own remarks suggest that you believe that Herbert and Ted did not meet the Biblical qualifications to be leaders within God's Church. Please enlighten us with your perspective on exactly how they failed to meet the standard (are you suggesting that perversion and incestuous pedophilia weren't part of their list of failures?)
Taking all of your comments together, I can now see that you were also bristling at the designation of the Worldwide ministry as minions and hirelings. If most of the ministry wasn't acting in the capacity of "a follower or underling of a powerful person, especially a servile or unimportant one" (minion) or "a person employed to undertake menial work" hireling, please provide us with specific examples of when ministers successfully opposed Herbert Armstrong or persuaded him to make some major change to doctrine (and please don't offer something like changing the day of Pentecost observance as evidence). You appear to be operating under the delusion that ministerial discussions about theological topics mattered much to Mr. Armstrong - that he valued the views of those who labored under him and for him. Didn't he believe that God was working through him? That God had revealed TRUTH to him, and that HE had shared it with the rest of us?
Finally, my point about serious and detailed criticisms of the DOCTRINES of Armstrongism remain. Yes, there is certainly an element here that complains about governance and authoritarianism within Worldwide and its descendants (and their points in this regard are very often valid). However, there are also a great many of us (like NEO) who have taken issue with the theology of Armstrongism and have provided detailed Scriptural treatises on why particular teachings of Herbert Armstrong (and his followers) were/are wrong/flawed. In other words, it wouldn't be outlandish to suggest that the majority of posts on this site deal with the TEACHINGS of Armstrongism, NOT the personal flaws or governance issues associated with the leaders of the movement. You suggest that the perspective on Armstrongism here is skewed, but isn't it also possible that you're looking back on the movement through very rose-colored glasses?
We've seen so many people suddenly make a grand entry here over the years, admonish and correct us while teasing us with what they might contribute, and then become frustrated with the fact that nobody became their disciples or accepted their "correction".
What ever happened to just joining in discussion as a member of our community, gradually sharing, building trust and becoming a valued contributor? There is a certain knack to that. It just depends on whether someone wishes to be here long term or short term. Why do some always have to try to be the new Elvis or Beatles right off the bat???
Obviously this dude came here to figuratively pass gas in our elevator, and per his post at 9:21 is having a ROF-LMAO moment at our expense.😷
Post a Comment