Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders

Friday, August 16, 2024

True History of the True Church??








True History of the True Church??


What I am about to show you are a few examples taken from my recently completed review of a booklet by Herman Hoeh titled “True History of the True Church” 1959 edition. (My deepest thanks to my friends who helped me edit this project.) Hoeh's booklet attempts to build a lineage back through time from Herbert Armstrong to the Apostles. It cites real history books and makes real falsifiable claims on history. This is not some debatable bit of doctrinal curiosity here. This is history – supposedly the “TRUE history.” We can look at this and see without a doubt if it is true or if it is not. If what Hoeh says is not true, then it cannot possible be the "true history." I think you will be shocked by what I have found.

I would like to share these few examples with you since my overall study is far too large to post here and let you see for yourself whether or not Hoeh was being truthful. These are some of the most blatant examples, but I assure you the rest was no different.

How this works is I am going to give you a "claim", which is a quote from Hoeh's book. Then we'll review the facts behind the claim. Then I'll summarize.


CLAIM:

“But how did Nimrod – ‘Peter’ – become associated with Rome? Because it was to Rome that Nimrod fled from his persecutors. The ancient name of Rome was ‘Saturnia,’ recorded by Pliny in his Natural History, bk. III.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.15

FACTS:

In The Natural History of Pliny (the Elder), Volume I – which contains Book III – starting on p. 191, Pliny begins describing the regions of Italy. He mentions various areas and cities until, on page 202, Pliny begins describing the city of Rome. On page 203, he states that within the massive walls of Rome there were 14 districts. The metropolitan area grew, however, and eventually spilled over all bounds and engulfed several surrounding towns. On page 204, Pliny mentions that within the first district, within the bounds of the then current city of Rome, there was one town engulfed which was called Saturnia. Pliny also mentions Janiculum (formerly Antipolis) which also forms part of the then current city of Rome.

The translators write in the notations on page 204, about Antipolis:

“Said to have been so called from having been ‘opposite’ to the ancient city of Saturnia. The Janiculus or Januculum was a fortress on the opposite bank of the Tiber, and a suburb of Rome, connected with it by the Sublician bridge.”

CONCLUSION:

This claim is false. Hoeh distorts what Pliny said. Rome was not formerly known as Saturnia. Rather, Rome had grown to engulf Saturnia and many other small towns.


CLAIM:

“Anacletus, an elder or bishop in the apostate church at Rome, dedicated the ancient shrine of the pagan Peter (or Nimrod) to the apostle Peter around 80 A.D., according to a record in the Liber Pontificalis (I, p. 125).”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.15

FACTS:

Anacletus, aka Cletus, lived during the time of the Apostles. Some records say Anacletus was bishop of Rome in 77-88, others say 80-92. The records just aren’t entirely reliable. There are even some records that split Anacletus into two different people (Cletus and Anacletus). But we should ask ourselves, why were these records so spotty? Simple! The persecution of Christians that began with Nero was still going strong, and it was deadly to be a Christian out in the open.

I’ve searched the Liber Pontificalis for entries about Anacletus dedicating a shrine, and I have found nothing. Nothing in volume I page 125. Nothing in the entire thing. I did, however, find reference to Anacletus building a tomb in Volume I, p. 9:

“He built and adorned the sepulchral monument to Peter, forasmuch as he had been made priest by the blessed Peter, and other places of sepulcher for the burial of bishops. There he himself was likewise buried near the body of the blessed Peter…”

Vatican hill was an ancient cemetery used by both pagans and eventually Christians. It was also used as farmland. It also housed the Circus of Nero (an arena for races and gladiator fights). Given that, it is impossible that an ancient shrine could have survived from Nimrod’s day for Anacletus to rededicate.

CONCLUSION:

This claim is false. Hoeh, I suspect willfully, misquotes the Liber Pontificalis. This tomb was built by Anacletus; he did not dedicate an ancient shrine.


CLAIM:

“Anacletus claimed to be the sole successor to Peter. He insisted that Rome should be the new headquarters of all the churches.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.15

FACTS:

History is so spotty that there are several versions of his placement in the Catholic list of Popes. Hoeh gives no source for this claim. I suspect there is no source. Hoeh only invents this claim to take down Anacletus, and that solely because of his involvement with Peter’s tomb.

CONCLUSION:

This claim is manufactured. There is absolutely no record of Anacletus making this claim. Later Popes (much later) made this claim, but that is no proof at all in regards to whether or not Anacletus made this claim. The notion that the Bishop of Rome would have made a claim like that in those days is laughable and betrays a complete lack of understanding of the order of things in the early church. In fact, at that time, it was the Greek east that was dominant – not the Latin west. And all Bishops were considered of equal rank.

I would remind you that the list of Popes is an attempt to link the Catholic Pontiff to the Apostles - and that is precisely what Hoeh is doing in this booklet. This claim is meant to discredit his competition.


CLAIM:

“This church [Smyrna] claims they are spiritually Jews.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.17

FACTS:

Here is God’s word:

(REV. 2: 9) …I know the blasphemy of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

They do not at all claim to be “spiritually Jews.” The Bible neither says that, nor does it intend that as its meaning. None of the most respected Bible commentaries support Hoeh. This is a blatant rewriting of the Bible. Hoeh inserts the word “spiritual” so that in your mind you will equate this to the phrase “Spiritual Israel.”

CONCLUSION:

This claim is false. Hoeh has added to the words of the Bible in order to change “Jew” into “Gentile Christian.”


CLAIM:

[Hoeh quotes Eusebius:]

“But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the difference respecting… Easter. For while one party asserted that the Jewish custom (as to time) should be adhered to, the other (did not).

Accordingly, the people being thus in every place divided in this respect… no one appeared who was capable of devising a remedy… BECAUSE THE CONTROVERSY CONTINUED EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN BOTH PARTIES… Constantine appeared to be the only one on earth capable… He convoked a general council…”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.18

FACTS:

When I read this, I get the sense that Eusebius is an indifferent reporter of benign fact. I showed this quote to a neutral third party, without any commentary from me, and their conclusion was the same as mine.

Here are the actual words of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine, book III, Chapter V, in section “Of the Disagreement Respecting the Celebration of Easter”. I will underline the areas that Hoeh left out.

“But before this time another most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the difference respecting the salutary feast of Easter. For while one party asserted that the Jewish custom should be adhered to, the other affirmed that the exact recurrence of the period should be observed, without following the authority of those who were in error, and strangers to gospel grace [Jews].

Accordingly, the people being thus in every place divided in respect of this, and the sacred observances of religion confounded for a long period (insomuch that the diversity of judgment in regard to the time for celebrating one and the same feast caused the greatest disagreement between those who kept it, some afflicting themselves with fastings and austerities, while others devoted their time to festive relaxation), no one appeared who was capable of devising a remedy for the evil, because the controversy continued equally balanced between both parties. To God alone, the Almighty, was the healing of these differences an easy task; and Constantine appeared to be the only one on earth capable of being his minister for this good end. For as soon as he was made acquainted with the facts which I have described, and perceived that his letter to the Alexandrian Christians had failed to produce its due effect, he at once aroused the energies of his mind, and declared that he must prosecute to the utmost this war also against the secret adversary who was disturbing the peace of the Church.”

Not only did Hoeh leave out all that I have here underlined, he added two sections in parentheses, and a third section at the end.

CONCLUSION:

What Hoeh does here is strategically rewrite Eusebius in order to cause it to say precisely the opposite of what it does say. Hoeh would leave us to understand that the static dating of Easter was disturbing the church. Hoeh removed or rewrote all of the references to how his own position is considered to be “evil” and “disturbing” in Eusebius’ sight.


CLAIM:

“Not even the persecutions of pagan Rome matched the terrible slaughter of Constantine’s ‘Christian’ Rome. From the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) to about the death of Constantine, the persecution raged for 10 long years as prophesied (see Rev. 2: 10, where a prophetic ‘day’ represents a ‘year’ in fulfillment – Numbers 14: 34).”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.18

FACTS:

Once again we see Hoeh’s claims are factually erroneous. The Great Persecution under Diocletian was the worst Roman persecution by far – even worse than that of Nero. Galarius and Constantine ended that.

In 311 AD, Galerius issued an Edict of Toleration, ending the persecution of Christians. Constantine restored confiscated property to Christians in the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. There was now religious freedom in Rome. He outlawed crucifixion in favor of hanging, he restored property to Christians, he freed Christian slaves, he allowed the Christian bishops to decide their own policy (he then enforced their policy in an effort to maintain peace and unity), and many other such benevolent things.

CONCLUSION:

This claim is shockingly false. Hoeh would paint Constantine as a horrible butcher. And why? He does this for no other reason than to invent a history favorable to his flawed presuppositions.


CLAIM:

“The names given to these people of God by their enemies were ‘Athyngani’ – meaning ‘those who understood prophecy’ – and ‘Paulicians’ – the followers of the apostle Paul.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p.20

FACTS:


"Athyngani" means “untouchable.” Sándor Avraham, in his online study titled Myths, Hypotheses and Facts Concerning the Origins of Peoples, under section heading The True Origin of Roma and Sinti, says this:

“The Athinganoi were given such name in connection with their ritual purity laws, that regarded impure any contact with other people...”

Vasile Burtea's "The Roma in the Synchrony and the Diachrony of the Contact Population" [say that 5 times fast], under section 1.2 "The Motives and Passages of Migration" claims the phrase "Athinganoi" comes from the Greek and means, roughly, "untouchable."

Johann Lorenz Mosheim agrees, in his book "Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Volume II" chapter V. This author and book are quoted by Hoeh in his booklet.

As for the Paulicians, they got their name from Paul of Samasota, Bishop of Smyrna (200-275 AD). Not the Apostle Paul.

CONCLUSION:


This claim is demonstrably false. After all of the reading Hoeh did - especially reading Mosheim - I find it impossible to believe that he didn't full well know this.


CLAIM:

“They [the Henricians] were charged by the Catholic Church with remaining faithful to the whole law of God and of observing the Sabbath (Ecclesiastical History, by Peter Allix, pp. 168-169).

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p. 22

FACTS:

Hoeh quotes the book “Ecclesiastical History” by Peter Allix. This turns out to be “Remarks Upon the Ecclesiastical History of the Ancient Churches of the Albigenses”.

That’s Albigenses - not the Petrobrussians, Henricians, or Arnoldists.

The omission of the full title of this work seems utterly deceptive to me since Hoeh uses this quote in direct reference to Henry of Lausanne (founder of the Henricians) and Arnold of Brescia (founder of the Arnoldists) .. but the book is about the Albigenses. Peter de Bruys (founder of the Petrobrussians) and Henry of Lausanne (Henricians) are only mentioned in the book in regards to proving the Albigenses predated them.

To put it plainly, he is citing a book about one group and trying to apply it to other groups.

Hoeh only paraphrases, so there is no specific quote to confirm or deny. What I can do, however, is tell you that the word “sabbath” never appears in the work, and the “law of God” certainly does not refer to the laws of the Old Covenant (which is precisely what Hoeh understands this phrase to mean).

CONCLUSION:

I have found nothing in this book at all, or any other besides, to justify Hoeh’s paraphrase. All of these men were Catholic reformers, outraged by the excesses of the clergy. Peter de Bruys even sought the Pope's permission to preach.


CLAIM:

“Their [the Waldenses] enemies admitted that these people proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom of God, that they baptized repentant believers and obeyed the whole law of God.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p. 23

FACTS:

William Jones, in his book "History of the Christian Church", specifically says, on p. 80 of his book, that they did not tithe. In fact, Jones relates this to us on p. 82:

“An impartial review of the doctrinal sentiments maintained by the Waldenses; the discipline, order, and worship of their churches, as well as their general deportment and manner of life, not to mention their determined and uniform opposition to the church of Rome, affords abundant evidence of the similarity of their views and practices to those held by Luther, Calvin, and the other illustrious characters, whose labours, in the sixteenth century, contributed so eminently to effect the glorious Reformation.” [emphasis mine]

Note: This is a book Hoeh quotes often. Andrew Dugger and C. O. Dodd in their earlier work "A History of the True Religion Traced from 33 AD to Date" quote from it 33 times. They all refer to it as "Jones' Church History."

CONCLUSION:

Hoeh is obviously not impartial. His claims are false.

The Waldensian church still exists today. They are part of the Presbyterian church. Ask them what their history is.


CLAIM:

“Through the preaching of Lollard and other helpers, hundreds were repenting. Thousands were learning for the first time that baptism means immersion – that the world’s religious holidays came from paganism and that Sunday was not the Sabbath.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, P. 23

FACTS:

Hoeh goes into some specific claims, but backs them up with nothing.

He mentions the Lollards. What do we know about them?

The Lollards were followers of John Wycliffe, another early Protestant. They rejected the excesses of the clergy. Once again we have a group who opposed tithing – they wanted the clergy to live off their own labor. Wycliffe only wanted to reform the Catholic Church.

CONCLUSION:

This claim is false. John Wycliffe was a Catholic reformer; certainly not an Armstrongist.


CLAIM:

“Several faithful congregations did not become members of the [Seventh-day Baptist] Conference because they would not submit to the new Protestant doctrines being introduced (see p. 246 of Belcher’s Religious Denominations).”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, pp. 23-24

FACTS:

The book Hoeh references is The Religious Denominations in the United States: Their History, Doctrine, Government and Statistics with a Preliminary Sketch of Judaism, Paganism, and Mohammedanism by Joseph Belcher. Upon turning to page 246, as referenced, I found that Mr. Belcher was not at all speaking of the Seventh Day Baptists. He was speaking about a subsection of Baptists that he calls “Six Principle Baptists.” Mr. Belcher even lists these 6 principles, and contrasts them with the Associated Baptists and the Freewill Baptists, so it is obvious that he is not speaking of the Seventh-day Baptist church.

CONCLUSION:

Hoeh infers Belcher was speaking about the Seventh-day Baptists; he was not saying that at all. Hoeh infers that Belcher was saying certain independent seventh day Sabbath observing groups were refusing to join the Seventh-day Baptist General Conference; he was not saying that at all. Hoeh infers that Belcher was saying the issue was over the introduction of pagan heresies (ie. Protestant doctrines); he was not saying that at all. Hoeh infers the refusal was more specifically over the Sabbath, or naming, or some such issue; it was not. Hoeh didn’t get a single detail correct except that there was one group who refused to join another.

I can see no possible way that this was done without complete foreknowledge and willful intent. For it to be anything besides would mean Herman Hoeh is either not the author, or he was suffering from some form of dementia.


CLAIM:

“The original Church of God brethren generally did not go along with the ‘inspired restimony’ of Ellen G. White. Finally, a meeting was held by some of the members in Battle Creek, Michigan, September 28 through October 1, 1860.”

-Herman Hoeh “True History of the True Church.” 1959, p. 24

FACTS:

Hoeh is referring to Gilbert Cranmer and his rejection of Ellen G. White. Hoeh is attempting to sever all ties with William Miller and the Seventh Day Adventists.

According to the Ellen G. White official estate website, in an article titled “Ellen G. White: A Brief Biography”, under section “Marriage of James White and Ellen Harmon”, John and Ellen White accepted the Saturday Sabbath in the latter half of 1846. According to the Seventh Day Adventist website, in an article on the history of the church, it states the name “Seventh-day Adventist” was chosen in 1860.

It was at this conference in Battle Creek, Michigan that one of William Miller’s followers, Mr. Gilbert Cranmer (an elder in Ellen G. White’s Adventist church) publically aired disagreements with Ellen G. White and her visions. Afterwards, Gilbert Cranmer took a chunk of people in Michigan with him when he left, and he formed the group that eventually became known as the Church of God (Seventh Day).

CONCLUSION:

This statement is false. Generally speaking, for several years the majority did go along with Ellen G. White. If they hadn’t, there wouldn’t be any “Seventh Day” in “Church of God (Seventh Day)”. Only a handful eventually broke away, and that was due to her odd visions and prophecies. But Armstrongism is a branch of Adventism and a descendant of Ellen G. White’s church. (Technically they still go along with her to this day.) In trying to deny this link, Hoeh inadvertently admits it. That tie is impossible to sever.

In closing…

One person can show every last verse in the Bible on a given topic, and as sure as the sun rises in the east there will be someone bound and determined to argue against it. It is the nature of people to feel so highly of their own opinions that some will never be convinced otherwise by any evidence. Mankind would kill their Savior before they re-assess their opinions and beliefs.

But this information I have laid out here is not speculation. It is a matter of historical fact. In one place Hoeh quotes an author, and I have checked that quote, and in the vast majority of instances his quote was incorrect. Some were not just incorrect, but grossly so. In some cases he left whole swaths of information out. In some cases he claimed things were said that were not.

This is not a matter of opinion. Did Hoeh misquote or did he not? It is a fact that he did! Therefore it cannot be the "true history."

The works are there, I have provided links, check for yourself. I deeply suspect, given the rare and inaccessible nature of the source material, that Hoeh and Armstrong hoped no one ever could or would double check.

Dear reader, you will have to read the full version of my study to get the full effect of Hoeh’s errors (or do a study of your own.) Several times Hoeh misquotes his sources. Several times he invents history. Several times his information is blatantly taken straight from the grossly flawed and fully debunked works of Alexander Hyslop. Several times his inventions are obviously designed to justify Herbert Armstrong and the things he has said or did. Indeed, the whole booklet was written to this end.

Some of the examples are so blatant, so egregious, that there is no possible way they were not deliberate, premeditated, and done with intent to deceive.

Taking in to account my recent review of Herbert Armstrong’s “Who is the Beast?” –where I saw much the same thing as I found here - I have no choice but to look at every work from these two compatriots with the highest degree of skepticism.

Current members of a COG, deeply sought after by God, please take this information to heart and consider the methods of the men who gave you what you now believe. Was it honest what they did? How much of what you now believe is based on the booklets and articles written by these two men? Did you do as the Bereans did and verify the information for yourself? I did not – until recently. And I am ASTOUNDED by the mistruth I found. Is that Godly fruit you’re eating, or rotten?

May God lead you to His truth. And may God have mercy on these men who have foisted such terrible lies on so many tens of thousands of people.

Posted by xHWA at Tuesday, October 13, 2009

48 comments:

  1. As I recall, several other sources in the booklet are completely misrepresented ("Cox's Sabbath Literature", I remember specifically). At leas one member who took the "prove all things" slogan to heart mailed copies of the quoted pages to HQ asking for clarification - as far as I know, they didn't get any.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As one speaking from experience, they probably got booted also. That is usually the result of asking to many logical questions for which they do not have answers.

      Delete
    2. RSK - yes, you are correct. He completely misrepresented several sources.

      Delete
  2. Hoeh: not a real historian

    A/C: not a real college

    ReplyDelete
  3. I find it interesting that you quote Hoeh’s quotes. Then you go on to summarize your own interpretation of what Hoeh’s sources “actually “ said, but don’t quote them to prove your point. Why?
    Also, it is my understanding that Hoeh used the church history of the church of God seventh day as a central source. That seems to be left out by your post.
    And, no, I am not a member of any WWCG group, or local church, and do not believe everything taught by them. However, to me your argument is flawed with great prejudice it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My Hoehday long ago was checking out a reference Hoeh made to establish that in Jewish history a Jew changed the sequence of leap years so that Nisan 14 fell on Wednesday in 31 AD to bolster the deception that Jesus died on Wednesday and was dead 3 days and 3 nights.  Nope.  A Jew, Chananya, did introduce a leap year but later "countermanded" his changes - Graetz History of the Jews, Vol 2, pp 443-444 online.  

    Nisan 14 was Monday in 31 AD (another huge subject:  lunar calculations have been fixed from creation to establish a fixed calendar:  Ps 104:19).   False apostles' and prophets' "proof" Jesus died on Wednesday is the word "midst" in Dan 9:27.  But the Hebrew word for "midst" can also mean "half".  The deception of Herb/Hoeh/WCG is 3 days and 3 nights have to be 12 hours each.  No.  The Hebrew and Greek words for "day" and "night" have several meanings, not just 12 hours.   My "take" on 3 days/nights:  full or part:  Nisan 14,15,16 with darkness Fri PM being one of the "nights".  In 33 AD.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "I find it interesting that you quote Hoeh’s quotes. Then you go on to summarize your own interpretation of what Hoeh’s sources “actually “ said, but don’t quote them to prove your point. Why?" -Anon 8-16-24 11:28

    Because I gave you the references, usually with links. Click the link and look up for yourself what they actually said. It's as simple as that. I'm not under any obligation to spoon feed you or to quote fifteen pages of a historical document.
    Also, because this is just a summary of a Larger Study. If there's too much info, people complain it's too much. So I made a summary. And, once again, we see if there's too little info, people complain it's not enough. No pleasing some people. So I don't try.
    Do your own reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Do your own reading.”

      That’s exactly what I do.

      Based on academic sources of how to write articles, books, etc. in the field of scholarly research, your post is big timed flawed. It would be good for at least two or three good solid quotes to establish your bene fides as someone who is qualified in their field of research. Grumping is not fact or qualification. Therefore I will not waste time reading an inflated gripe. Show us a positive alternative to Hoeh’s. Where is someone who believes scripture that can be followed into the truth. Thank you “vurry much.”

      Delete
  6. I am not sure what outcome Hoeh was working toward with this "history." , Perhaps, he was trying to credential HWA through an argument based on Apostolic Succession. But whatever the history of the WCG, David Koresh and the Branch Davidians had the same history. Maybe David Koresh is, too, an Apostle.

    It would have been good if Hoeh had critiqued his own body of work before he passed on. I know he renounced the Compendia but I don't know his stand of this church history. It is worth mentioning that he became a Christian before he died.

    Scout

    ReplyDelete
  7. "And, no, I am not a member of any WWCG group, or local church, and do not believe everything taught by them."

    But you accept the core of what Herb taught. You are not impartial to the article.
    I went through a similar process to that mentioned in the article. I started reading self help books, which immediately clashed with church teachings. I remember wondering why the church condemned self esteem and self confidence which books held up as virtues. It took many years to realize the painful truth that attacking confidence, esteem and similar is calculated murder of the mind (menticide) in order to increase minister power over members. The result was that on a holy day, I mentally left the organization, and went solo. As the bible says, "prove all things" and follow Christ as mentioned in 23 or 24 passages depending on how one verse is interpreted. To blindly follow any church despite discernable errors makes one fail the "mark of the beast" test.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "It would be good for at least two or three good solid quotes"

    I can see you like to boast and moan more than you like to understand. There is no great point to finding multiple quotes (which I did anyway in certain instances, if you had bothered to read) when my goal was to verify the sources already given. Hoeh gave sources, I verified them. Then I left you links which you still haven't followed. What do you propose I do, scholar, invent new sources for Hoeh to quote?

    We all can see what is "big time flawed" and that's your reading comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Back in 1959, "proving all things" (verifying all of Hoeh's false statements and fabrications) would have required hours of meticulous study in a large library with great resources, such as might typically have been found only in a major metropolitan area.

    Back in those days, the majority of the people who came into the church were rural folk, or simple working folk. The scholarship of Ambassador College research, to them, was the most advanced and deep research they had ever seen! My stepdad had an advanced degree in engineering, and even he didn't log all the hours in such a major library required to confirm what Hoeh and Armstrong were presenting as verified fact. Dad did read Hislop and Velikovsky, but such writers were presented as confirming authorities, not second opinions. In fact, HWA was revered as a quasi-Biblical character, "God's Apostle", and if you wanted to remain in the church, you did not seek out second opinions to anything he said. To HWA, "prove all things" meant "read my proofs and accept that what I'm telling you is the truth."

    It's just good to have the information superhighway that we have today, and people willing to spend the time required to go back to original sources which counter the truncated quotes we were disingenuously given. Even so, most of the time the full and real quotes will not be accepted or believed by people who have continued to imagine that HWA was God's apostle. It's really doubtful that you're going to find Bob Thiel or Sam Kitchen examining xHWA's dissertation, shaking their heads and exclaiming "Oh, my word! Mr. Armstrong and Dr. Hoeh fed us bald faced lies!" That's simply not how the mind of a cultic thinker works!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I joined wcg as a younger man I had the view Armstrong was a bible expert. I was blind in that sense. I realize now he was never a. Expert just a rehashed poster of falsehoods but good at dressing thing up. In short a liar

      Delete
  10. Just the fact that 140 years after the "founding" of the 7th Day Adventist" for a 100 years being a wierd cult and TODAY a hugely respected fast growing part of "Christianity" as part of the oecomenic World Council of Churches..... shows that you have no comprehension of how fast amalgamation or adaptation to mainstream goes AND How History is written and Who's agenda is eventually taken as "truth".... and you are describing thoudands of years.

    I could produce an essay that would rip apart most common knowledge stories on even the history of the United States.... In the end "tea party" myths remain as Truth.... Because the winner takes all..... As with mainstream Christianity.

    Nck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Adventists I suspect are not hugely respected.
      It is not a member church of the World Council of Churches, rather the Adventist Church has participated in its assemblies in an observer capacity.:

      Adventists resist the movement which advocates their full ecumenical integration into other churches, because they believe that such a transition would force them to renounce their foundational beliefs and endanger the distinctiveness of their religious message.
      Thus many still see them as a sect.

      Delete
  11. Hoed and Armstrong learned early in they could pretty well say and claim anything and then get away with it. Thus they despised the believers in their midst.
    God will administer the justice Im sure.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Here’s a non-Hoeh quote from the internet, among many. Yes, do your own reading.
    “While there is no definitive proof that Rome was originally called Saturnia, there are several pieces of evidence that support this theory.

    Linguistic Similarities: The Latin word for Saturday, “dies Saturni,” derives from the name of the god Saturn. This linguistic connection implies a historical association between the city and the deity.
    Ancient Texts: Some ancient texts mention Rome as Saturnia or even refer to its inhabitants as “Saturnians.”
    These writings provide some support for the theory that Rome had an earlier name related to Saturn.

    Archaeological Discoveries: Archaeologists have unearthed artifacts and inscriptions suggesting a strong religious cult dedicated to Saturn in early Rome. These findings indicate a significant connection between the city and its alleged original name.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It makes sense that some Romans would be called Saturnians. Saturnia was a real place that was absorbed by Rome. So, some Romans were Saturnians. That's the same as saying some New Yorkers are from the Bronx. That isn't to say all Romans were Saturnians, though.
      I don't think that we have nearly enough information to extrapolate that Rome had an earlier name related to Saturn. The history from Pliny is clear that Rome absorbed several towns, and Saturnia was only one of those.

      Delete
    2. xHWA wrote “ I don't think that we have nearly enough information to extrapolate that Rome had an earlier name related to Saturn.”

      There’s the problem. What you THINK is not a factual statement. As the article stated also that several historians believed that Saturnian was an early name for Rome. And, that another group of historians disagreed. At the time Hoeh wrote he went on the side that agreed. You take the side of those who disagree, to prove your point”I think.”
      So, in essence you are doing the same thing you accuse Hoeh of doing. But you go too far in writing he was deliberately deceiving people. Are you also, then, trying to do the same thing, I.e. deceive some people.
      Hoeh’s full premise may be wrong, but that is no excuse to label him with your assumptions, beliefs, and obvious biases.
      Besides, one can try to disprove another’s thesis , but it is also not necessary to try and destroy their character.

      Delete
    3. Got a link to said article, 9:55? My focus in school was on Mesopotamia, not so much the Greco-Roman world, but I'd still be interested in reading it.

      Delete
    4. Anon 9:55 - You're right, what I think is not a factual statement. Are you saying there is enough evidence? You mentioned two groups of historians who disagree. That means at least 50% of them are also "thinking". Same as me. What they THINK is also not a factual statement. What is a factual statement is there is not sufficient information for one side to prove their case to the other. That was my point. So, what I said is actually a factual statement. There is not enough information to definitively say that Rome started as Saturnia.

      It could only have played out one way - either Rome was originally Saturnia or it wasn't. It can't be both. Pliny says it was not.

      However, I really don't care either way. The entire point of the article was to check Hoeh's sources. Hoeh cited a source, Pliny, and that source did not say what Hoeh claimed it said. Precisely as the opening paragraphs said, Hoeh made claims and I checked his claims. It isn't that I was trying to prove any point about Saturnia. I was verifying Hoeh's sources. You could show all your sources that say Rome was once called Saturnia. Unless that source is Pliny, then it doesn't matter to the article. The article was entirely about checking Hoeh's sources. Hoeh misrepresented them. <<That is also a factual statement.

      Delete
  13. Later on I remember reading that Herman Hoeh went to HWA's grave with some Buddhist monks & they prayed and chanted. He seemed something of an enigma to me. I really wondered if he really believed all the writings he had written previously and if he no longer believed in them and just went with the flow. I do remember HWA's grandson saying after his mom was on the outs with HWA that he was about the only minister of the higher ups other than GTA that would have any contact with them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was a large contingent of Thai Buddhist monks at Herbert’s funeral at Mt View Cemetery. Groups of students and members went to the Thai Buddhist Temple on many occasions, particularly around time of HWA’s funeral.

      Delete
    2. What caused the rift between HWA & the grandson's Mom? Was it regarding divorce & remarriage scuffle that GTA differed with his Dad over?

      Delete
    3. I'm kind of wondering if these stidents and monks drew the wrong inferences from HWA's trips to Thailand.

      Delete
  14. Your last paragraph, nck, has some merit. I can actually cite a living example of this. Following the murder of George Floyd, it appeared for a while that the American public was finally receptive to the corrections to our history that African Americans and other enlightened scholars had been suggesting for decades. There was great interest in what studies in Critical Race Theory had been revealing in the institutes of higher education throughout the nation. Then one demagogue loudly proclaimed that this was all grossly unpatriotic to our country, and his sycophants gleefully went to work stamping it out and making such studies illegal and labeling them subversive. So, as if we former Armstrongites did not need another lesson in the damage cults do, we watch as an even larger scale cult attempts to upend and control all of the vitals of our lives. I have great hopes that this will soon all turn back around, but it's all OK because I still have my carton of Newports locked away in my hall closet just in case.

    I just so long for the days when young people recognized political demagogues, and openly satirized them on FM radio and in magazines like Rolling Stone and National Lampoon. Sometimes I just have to Google Stoneground: Colonel Chicken Fry. It's like a trip back home watching Sal Valentino and the wonderful band he put together in his post Beau Brummels days. The 3:42 is the live version, but the studio version is also great.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Apparently there is just natural weirdness associated with the family name "Theil". Check out Peter Theil and learn how he is clearly a bird of a feather with "Dr." Robert.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hoeh along with HWA never thought there would be many more years beyond their own lives before the end of the age. They certainly weren't aware that the age of the internet would occur, when every man could do his own research.

    ReplyDelete
  17. All history is malleable. In the novel 1984, Big Brother had the Ministry of Truth whose sole purpose was to revise the record of the facts to match current political view. That revised record then became, for all practical purposed, “the truth.” Until the next revision. We all suffer from the inability to relate facts without editorializing. Some strive to be accurate. Others strive to make the truth subservient to politics.

    Hoeh approached history with an agenda. His work was eisegetic. This is phenomenon not unknown to us. The pseudo-archaeologists in the Third Reich sought to support the racial theories of the German Government. Their pre-determined goal was to support the Aryanism of the German nation. One real archaeologist stated,

    "According to Nazi doctrine, the Germanic culture of northern Europe was responsible for virtually all major intellectual and technological achievements of Western civilization."

    We might recast this, and state with regard to Hoeh’s writing, especially the Compendium:

    “According to Herman Hoeh, the culture of northwest Europe was responsible for virtually all major intellectual and technological achievements of Western civilization.”

    People are ready to hear falsehood and believe it if it serves their purposes. Unfortunately, falsehood exists on a spectrum (shades of Kellyanne Conway and her “alternative facts”). falsehood ranges from near truth to creative writing. The Torah says, “Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be sustained.” But Jesus tempers this by saying, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone...”.

    Herman Hoeh was a good and dedicated servant to HWA and his organizational government. Hoeh’s goal was to endow the history of the WCG with as much credibility as possible. His writing is a work of zeal rather than historicity. He wanted to connect a little, odd Millerite sect lead by an advertising salesman to the great currents of history. And his writing glows with his fervor.

    Scout

    ReplyDelete
  18. Scout

    Your indictment of the Mother Church for adopting the machinations of this world system is spot on, definitely a contributing factor in its downfall (Galatians 6:7-8).

    Splinter groups . . . BEWARE!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hoeh, though not an historian, was paid more than actual historians.

    ReplyDelete
  20. So here's a good question: What year did WCG end up pulling this booklet? Anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  21. RSK just google “ was Rome ever called Saturnia” and you will find the article and a whole bunch more on the subject. The whole bunch more is quite revealing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RSK - while you're Googling, bear in mind there was more than one town called Saturnia on the Italian peninsula. It can get confusing talking about more than one Saturnia and more than one Rome (the city and the empire).

      Delete
    2. xHWA to anyone reading the information it is obvious there was another Saturnia in Italy. And, no one is saying Rome was in two places.
      The point is historians have claimed Rome was at one time called Saturnia, and others say there is not enough information to say that for certain. So, are you also saying those who believe it once was called Saturnia, are deliberately deceiving us as you falsely accuse Hoeh of doing? Are you the only authority that can tell us only you are correct? I don’t think so. The whole thing shows your premise and prejudice is also on very shaky grounds. And, from my almost ten years experience in personal contact with Hoeh, he was not even close to your negative statements about him. Reading your post is nothing like my face to face experience with him. You have described a total stranger based on faulty assumptions. How about just the facts with full disclosure. Thanks for the banter anyway.

      Delete
    3. First, I never claimed Rome was in two places. I said Rome was a city and an empire.

      Second, I don't falsely accuse Hoeh of anything. I proved it. Hoeh made a claim, I demonstrated the claim is false. Unless you want to say that Pliny DOES say what he demonstrably does not say. Please do show us that. If you want to say I falsely accused, let's see your definitive evidence that Pliny says Rome was originally Saturnia. Prove it. But you won't. Because you can't.

      Third, that you met him has absolutely nothing to do with what he wrote. And what he wrote isn't an assumption. He wrote it and published it. He demonstrably misrepresented his sources. Don't just run your fanboy mouth, prove me wrong.

      Delete
    4. The several sites on the internet mentioned already prove you wrong. Pliny is not the only source used by historians.
      My experience with Hoeh was more than just a casual passing in the hallway. Your seeming blind prejudice precedes your assessment.
      Sorry, your stance is still very shaky and is quite evident to anyone who checks the various websites discussing this subject. And, quit your typical assumptions to try and justify an untenable position. Calling me a fanboy is a very poor defense of your position. Sorry.
      Maybe another day.

      Delete
    5. So, no evidence then? I thought as much. I know that you have no idea what research is. That's established. What a surprise that a person who shills for Hoeh would misrepresent his own sources, calling them "scholars" when all he really did was go to Reddit.
      But let's get to the meat an potatoes here. You've had ample opportunity to read the post, yet you won't (the post is actually 15 years old, you could have Googled it any time). Not even the opening paragraph. You commented here without even a basic understanding of what the post is about. That is intellectually lazy. It's not just dishonest to stand right in front of evidence and say it doesn't exist, it's willfully ignorant. Indeed it's delusional.

      Delete
  22. Confusing? Heck yeah! Lends itself to deliberate obfuscation. They did this hocus pocus with Simon Peter and Simon Magus, and we just took their word for it!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Has anybody googled "Was Rome ever called Saturnia?" and had primary sources come up?

    This would be very interesting for those of us who know what primary sources are. I know xHWA knows. Just trying to ascertain whether those contesting him know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did not on my attempt. Just a Reddit thread and a couple of other bits of trivia. But I was working on something last night and didnt have a lot of time at the moment to dig.

      Delete
  24. Is AI advanced enough to handle the question?

    ReplyDelete
  25. TKACH would definitely cancel this booklet, and for good reason!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Reddit, in general, is opinion fluff. It's not even authoritative on rock n roll issues, one of my other favorite topics.

    I guess I've been spoiled by my own education. When doing research, I generally look for university quality reference materials. A handful of others here do as well. We also see much lame speculation intended to cloud or foment doubt. Sometimes that doesn't even make good logical sense.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Another Herbie-Booklet bites the dust!

    ReplyDelete