Narcissists in the Church of God Ruin Everything

After Rod Meredith's death, LCG made a big-to-do of publishing his master's thesis from Ambassador College in 1956. The title of this 138-page booklet is "The Plain Truth About The Protestant Reformation." On the back cover, it says, "Before his death in 2017, he began editing and lightly revising his thesis for a brand-new audience."

After reading it, I had to wonder why there was not a single person in the boardroom who said, "Given our own church history, would it be wise to publish this?"

Maybe one or more did. And maybe that is why they state it is for a "brand-new audience." But I couldn't help but think how this book will not bode well for the old audience and those in-the-know on the history of Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God cult.

Certainly, we are aware of the arrogance that exudes from the AC elite running all the splinters. Quite possibly, Gerald Weston settled the matter by saying something like, "It is true that the booklet reads as if it was our own putrid history but it is not likely our sheep have the mental capacity to make such a connection. After all, we are selling this to the generation born in this church after 1986. Surely, our youth won't scan the internet to learn the truth about the Church their parents birthed them into. And any of their parents who do happen to be able to make the connection have been embroiled in the lie for so long that the cognitive dissonance will not allow them to challenge it." (You read that with Weston's voice in your head, didn't you?)

What I want to do is just review the booklet and point out, in particular, the ways the Protestant Reformation mirrors the history of HWA and the WCG. By doing so, I will prove that Roderick C. Meredith was indeed, a prophet. His thesis is, in fact, a not-so-encrypted prophecy of who HWA would prove to be and what his cult would become over the next 30 years. (Save the stupid comments. I'm being facetious about the prophet thing.)

As is true of just about every argument made in the churches of God, RCM plants his whole thesis on a straw man. He asks the same question, chapter after chapter, "Was the Reformation a return to the faith once for all delivered?" He then sets his own prophetic trap by saying in the close of chapter one pertaining to his central question above: 

"This is the question that should burn itself into the minds and hearts of all thinking men and women, because the final answer to this question will determine -to a great extent- the real meaning of  the religious division and confusion of our time."

He also states at the beginning of his thesis that, "We must weigh any religious denomination or movement in the balance of Christ's prophetic saying: 'You will know them by their fruits.'"

Before moving on from his opening chapter, I do want to share this rather bizarre quote from page 20:

"We need to bear in mind that these men [pre-reformation reformers] -and Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and their associates-had all been reared from childhood in Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. They had been taught nothing else, and since there were practically no religious books or Bibles available in the common tongues , they knew of little else than the Roman Catholic faith, ceremonies, rituals and traditions. Therefore, it was virtually impossible for them to objectively look at the religious system in which they had been reared and compare it to the beliefs and practices of Jesus Christ and the inspired New Testament Church."

Wow! So, let me get this straight. They could not approach the Bible objectively because they were Catholics but apparently, former Methodist, Gilbert Cranmer was able to found the Sabbath-keeping Church of God. And of course, Herb, of Quaker stock, and self-evident narcissist and incestuous child rapist, had the "objectivity" to get baptized by a Baptist preacher, collect minister checks from COG7D for 5-7 years, then start his own (information marketing business) religious cult, cherry-picking ideas from others who thought them, built by already impoverished dupes who kept sending him money even as his false prophecies piled up on radio. Makes sense.

In the 2nd chapter, his first concern about the Catholic church was the Pope's "insatiable craving for money." (You can't make this stuff up.)

The Roman pontiffs were able to extract this money from their unwary subjects by various means concealed under the appearance of religion." -p.24

He goes on to say that much of early reform and revolt was from German nobility who wished to free themselves from "papal taxation." Later, he calls it a "ruthless financial policy." But what RCM was very careful not to call it was "tithes" which is exactly what it was. The Apostolic church certainly never collected tithes as it was understood that it was done away with the Old Covenant. It wasn't until the 500's that the Catholic Church attempted to collect tithes in order to pay for their ornate cathedral buildings but was rejected. The Catholic Church finally succeeded in duping Europe into tithing in 777. The sick irony is, of course, that WCG went on to demand 30%+ in tithes and offerings. As far as I know, that record of financial extraction hasn't been surpassed until Dave Pack declared 100%.

In chapter 3-5 (and a few other places in the booklet) is a personal attack on Martin Luther. Here is a list of character traits he brings out:

1. a desire to escape authority and obedience
2. periods of exaltation and depression
3. moodiness
4. dogged by perpetual guilt
5. deep sense of personal inadequacy
6. spiritually drunk
7. practiced eisegesis
8. rejected or ignored Scriptures he disagreed with
9. justified using violence
10. became enmeshed in politics
11. condoned bigamy
12. chose division instead of fellowship over petty differences
13. stubborn and self-willed
14. lived life as though above the law or what he taught others
15. inconsistent and self-contradictory
16. proclivity to pick-n-choose from multiple sources to formulate a private system of belief

Obviously, anyone with first-hand experience with or read about HWA knows RCM is describing his very own "spiritual papa." Martin Luther and Herbert Armstrong suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. One noteworthy reference on the subject is a book by Sam Vaknin called, "Malignant Self Love" with a chapter addressing religious leaders. Another is a video on Youtube by Dan Rogers covering the Adventist roots of Grace Communion International. You can watch it below.

Chapter 6 is spent attacking John Calvin for essentially the same character traits as Luther. He does spend more time on his theology but also emphasizes his violent character in enforcing very strict rules of life and carrying out acts of torture and murder on sinners. Sharing more narcissistic traits with Luther and Herb, Calvin was never wrong, refused to change anything he committed to and justified the death of fellow Christians over extreme petty doctrinal differences. HWA (as far as I know)  never advocated for the death of anyone openly but one has to realize, placing a narcissist in the right setting where he knows he can get away with it, will indeed stoop to any heinous sin, whether it be fraud, sexual immorality, theft, torture or murder. In addressing the sheer harshness of Luther and Calvin, RCM concludes by saying:

"This very dominance of Luther and Calvin was, in many ways, detrimental. It led men to accept without question their doctrine and practice-never thinking to prove these ideas by the holy word of God...Protestants often have tended to make infallible popes out of Luther, Calvin and the other early reformers."

Is it just me or does Herb deserve a seat at the same table? For Herb's-sake, the man has been dead for 34 years and if you question even the pettiest of doctrines in the churches of God openly, you are red-flagged by both minister and some members as a rebel, heretic, dangerous, etc.

And on p.107, he says:

"Before gaining political power, the reformers all insisted upon the inalienable right of every Christian to search the Bible for himself and to judge its teachings independently. But once they were in power, woe be to the Catholic, the Anabaptist, or to any other who continued to insist upon this inalienable right!"

The COG7D was established with Congregational governance. By the time HWA came into contact with that church, Andrew Dugger was throwing his weight around, attempting to centralize more power over the church to himself. Narcissists, when not in charge, are all for rebellion, revolution, anarchy or whatever it takes to dismantle power and control. One of Herb's better articles was on church government in 1939. It is clear that he was absolutely opposed to top-down hierarchical government and made a decent case for it being unbiblical. But as some know, by 1979, HWA had just finished using RCM and RFM as his toady henchmen to rid HWA of his "liberal" enemies and secure his papal status in his Armstrongian Catholic church.

RCM is very careful not to attack Roman Catholic government throughout the book, but instead, zeros in on the problematic effects of that government. In his mind, the government wasn't the problem, it was the people. The Catholics are devoid of God and His Holy Spirit, therefore they could not do good. But WCG was Spirit-filled and Spirit-led by "holy" men and therefore "holy" men can make any government function properly.

RCM candidly admits in his Global Church of God government booklet that it was he and Herman Hoeh who convinced HWA in 1953-54 that top-down, hierarchical, one-man rule is the New Testament government. In many ways, RCM played right into the narcissist monster in hiding, feeding him all the narcissistic supply he needed to continue moving forward, his money-making cult venture.

[An interesting side note: he dedicates a page to the lust of nationalism that was sweeping the continent of Europe alongside the Reformation. What he obviously didn't catch was the fact that what started out as a theological theory in England at the time, because of the Reformation, evolved into British-Israelism.]

"It is an undeniable fact the 'fruit' of the Protestant Reformation is the divided 'churchianity' of our day. We must say at the outset that this is bad fruit. Paul tells us that the Spirit of God produces unity-not division." -p.104

Just imagine how easy this was to say in 1956 and not have a clue that what he put in motion with Herman Hoeh in 1954 would lead to what we have today! Here is another easy thing to say in 1956 in the last chapter of the booklet, having no clue what the next 30 years would bring:

"We are forced to conclude that the Reformation certainly did not lead men to the Bible...nor return men to the faith which was once for all delivered...We must recognize that the leaders of the Reformation were only transferring authority to themselves within the same pagan system."

This is exactly what Rod Meredith and Herman Hoeh did in 1954. The two most important doctrines every false church must have in place, in direct opposition to what Christ required in Matthew 20:20-28, in order to draw all power, control, and authority to itself is:

1. top-down, hierarchical governance
2. tithing

I don't care if all your other doctrines, dogmas and traditions are spot on, you are disqualified on these two false doctrines alone. Period. Spirit-filled or not, men are not qualified to practice God's hierarchical government (He does indeed have in Heaven) because we are not God. The history of HWA and his cult business is ample proof that this is simply an undeniable truth. The history of man proves this undeniable truth.

The back cover claims there were light revisions made. If I had to guess, these two comments at the very end were probably part of that:

"The true church will be a body of people continually growing into more complete truth and knowledge and deeper understanding!...For decades, this church has dared, as no other church on earth, to proclaim definite, specific prophetic events to occur-and they have been happening!" 

Seriously? The only thing remotely close to being prophetically accurate from the churches of God is this booklet I facetiously pointed out at the beginning. Growth? The churches of God are in suspended animation and have been for at least since Herb drew his last breath, but arguably longer. Some members and their children in the churches of God are actually growing in truth, knowledge and understanding. It is the AC elite that refuses. The churches of God are filled with good people who want to transition from a cult to a church but I wonder if the long shadow of a dead gnostic narcissist will forever prohibit such a jubilee.

I will just conclude with a quote from a Protestant reformer, John Knox, whom RCM quotes on pg. 3:

"All worshipping, honouring, or service of God invented by the brain of man in the religion of God without His own express commandment is idolatry...it shall nothing excuse you to say, we trust not in idols, for so will every idolater allege; but if either you or they in God's honour do anything contrary to God's word, you show yourself to put your trust in somewhat else besides God, and so are idolaters, Mark, brethren, that many maketh an idol of their own wisdom or phantasy; more trusting to that which they think good not unto God."

by: Stoned Stephen Society

Apologies and Why They Matter

"I'm Sorry

I was wrong

Forgive me

Thankyou

I love You"

So very much could be said about the human need to apologize and why apologies matter in life.  In many points we all offend as says the scriptures.  Just interacting with others proves that daily.  

“Never ruin an apology with an excuse.”
― Benjamin Franklin

In my experience, Apostles, Evangelists, Pastors, Members and Administrators were never good at it. Church organizations aren't good at it and one really can't forgive an organization anyway. We have to forgive people and it is people who have to apologize. Dave Pack, Ron Weinland and Gerald Flurry aren't good at it. They aren't even aware of the concept.

Donald Trump evidently isn't either.

"I think apologizing's a great thing, but you have to be wrong. I will absolutely apologize, sometime in the hopefully distant future, if I'm ever wrong."

 Herbert Armstrong never apologized for anything I can recall. He was wont to find a reason God allowed it. Garner Ted may have but the hits just kept playing so that tends to be "I'm sorry I got caught.".  I hear Joe Tkach Sr admitted he was a fool on his death bed but Joe Jr never thought it wise it seems to pass that one to everyone else.  Joe Jr never apologized to anyone for reckless and cold hearted change inflicted and  done in a couple years that have taken mainstream Christianity thousands. 

 Perhaps it was viewed as a weakness to admit one was wrong, mistaken or ignorant. Perhaps it was too easy to hide behind the foolish excuses such as:

God is giving us more time

Well, David was a man after God's own heart and he sinned

Jesus is revealing new truths to us every day

Because I said so that's why

God leads through his Apostle and Ministers

We didn't make you do that

You have a bad, poor or rotten attitude

It's trust and obey for there's no other way buddy

God worked a miracle in the church and we don't have any more money

I'm God's Apostle

I'm God's Minister

I'm God's Elder

I'm God's...deacon

...and so on

“Would 'sorry' have made any difference? Does it ever? It's just a word. One word against a thousand actions.”
― Sarah Ockler, Bittersweet

Yes, I believe it does make a difference

I can think of many things in my life for which an apology was due. I owe and own any number of them towards former wife now deceased, though we did have that talk before her death and my family. I owe  members apologies I have influenced or taught badly along the way. Sincerely but inaccurately. 

I can think of a few sincere apologies the Church might owe myself and my family as well.

There are probably a few that might be in order here on Banned as we observe the Churches of God with a critical eye and then each other for the observing we do or the conclusions we draw. 

Sometimes we're not quite sure what we have said or done.  So we do  the best we can until the mud clears. I am having this particular experience at the moment endeavoring to have a relative return the cremains of my parents to me them being my parents and all and not theirs. So far no good. It seems there is some offense I have committed of which I am unaware holding up the show. No communication and no remains to show for it.  The two, in my world, aren't connected but I don't live in everyone's world where evidently they are.   So we do the best we can do until the waters clarify.

I will make every endeavor not to make a  joke about spineless chiropractors. I just know he'd adjust without them.
:)

Breathe.....I forgive....  

“I wasn't saying whatever they're saying I was saying. I'm sorry I said it really. I never meant it to be a lousy anti-religious thing. I apologize if that will make you happy. I still don't know quite what I've done. I've tried to tell you what I did do but if you want me to apologize, if that will make you happy, then OK, I'm sorry.”
― John Lennon

"Why are apologies so rare? Do people believe that by not owning up to their errors and the harm they've caused that no one will be the wiser?

Puzzled in Peoria

Dear Puzzled,

Many see an apology as a sign of weakness, believing that only the weak apologize.

“Never apologize, mister, it’s a sign of weakness.”
― John Wayne

(My addition to this short article)

 Since ancient times, the vulnerable have depended on the strong. Slaves bowed and apologized to owners; serfs apologized to feudal lords; courtiers apologized to royalty; employees apologized to employers. The reverse was considered unthinkable.

This tradition is unfortunately still with us: for the powerless, apologies are mandatory; for the powerful, they're unnecessary.

This shouldn't exist in modern life but it does, partly because many behave as if they’re “Masters of the Universe,” in Tom Wolfe's apt phrase from his 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities. 

When one friend hurts another, a caring friend apologizes at once. The Master or Mistress of the Universe doesn't: it’s the difference between being empathic and being arrogant.

Some people have more trouble apologizing than others.  As the gifted psychoanalyst Dr. Nancy McWilliams has written, narcissists have particular difficulty expressing remorse because to them it implies fallibility and personal error, admissions that are psychologically intolerable to such people.

Apologies can be difficult for everyone. An apology includes a clear statement of one’s error or offense, such as being disrespectful, underhanded, mean-spirited, deceitful, disloyal, unfair, hurtful, condescending, inconsiderate, insulting, heartless, cruel, abusive, as well as negligent, careless, feckless, and reckless.

Is it pleasant to acknowledge that you've been any of these?  No. It takes self-awareness, backbone, and a strong desire to do right by another human being.

Apologies matter if you value a relationship.

If you imagine that by procrastinating or refusing to apologize you'll evade responsibility forever and make the damage you produced vanish into thin air, you're fooling only yourself. Your friends or family members may no longer mention the injury you caused, but that doesn't mean a painful, unhealed wound doesn't remain. It's never too late to apologize, even decades after you inflicted harm. But, as Benjamin Franklin said, "Never ruin an apology with an excuse."

If you don't know what you've done to hurt or alienate someone: ask. Don't offer a vague, blanket apology "for anything I may have done" or peremptorily insist that the injured person "forget about this; it isn't important."  These tactics show greater concern for yourself -- and your need to "get past this unpleasantness" with transparently empty, unfeeling words -- than for the person you've hurt.

Why Apologies Matter

“Life becomes easier when you learn to accept an apology you never got.”
― Robert Brault 

“If an apology is followed by an excuse or a reason, it means they are going to commit same mistake again they just apologized for.”
― Amit Kalantri 

“Apologizing does not always mean you're wrong and the other person is right. It just means you value your relationship more than your ego.”
― Mark Matthews 

I do have to admit that theologically I NEVER understood the reasoning and why of 

"Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (of sin)"

Hebrews 9:22

And this doesn't count!

“What's the n-never-fail universal apology?"

"'I was badly misinformed, I deeply regret the error, go fuck yourself with this bag of money.”
― Scott Lynch, The Republic of Thieves

The Missing Dimension in HWA's and GTA's Sexual Teachings

THE MISSING DIMENSION IN HERBERT’S AND GARNER TED’S SEXUAL TEACHINGS

How did many thousands of people come to regard the teachings of an incestuous pedophile and a serial adulterer on human sexuality as authoritative? That’s a good question, and one that is worthy of an answer or explanation! After all, most of us would expect someone who purports to be an expert on issues related to questions of morality surrounding human sexuality to be practitioners of what they preach.

The first point that should be made in answering our opening question is that the overwhelming majority of the folks who accepted the teachings of Herbert and Garner Ted Armstrong in this regard were completely unaware of their personal moral failures in this realm when they were introduced to those teachings. In the light of subsequent revelations about the private sexual lives of both men, however, it becomes more problematic in attempting to explain why so many folks continue to accept their teachings in this area. Again, one would think that their failures would cause their followers to take another look at their teachings on a subject that is so important to most humans!

It is more than a little ironic that Herbert Armstrong had the temerity to write The Missing Dimension in Sex after years of sexually abusing his own young daughter. “That is an unproven and scurrilous accusation!” his defenders will shout. For me, the fact that his son (Garner Ted) believed that it had happened (and confronted his father with it) is sufficient reason to believe that it happened. Moreover, even if we were to dismiss this allegation as “unproven and scurrilous,” how do we explain the circumstances surrounding Herbert’s second marriage and divorce?

Likewise, Garner Ted had the audacity to write about Modern Dating before being kicked out of church for his philandering ways. After ignoring his son’s marital infidelity for years, the problem finally became so severe (and so widely known) that Herbert was forced to put his heir apparent out of the church! Years later, after starting his own church, Garner Ted was famously caught on tape sexually propositioning a masseuse!

“Their moral failures don’t negate the validity of the moral principles which they promoted in their writings!” some of their defenders will shout. That may or may not be true but doesn’t it (at the very least) warrant us taking a closer look at the principles they advanced?

Herbert Armstrong liked to criticize what he referred to as the “New Morality.” In fact, his original treatise on the subject was titled God Speaks Out on the New Morality (for our purposes, we will not address the arrogance involved in presuming to speak for God). He decried the fact that, although science has swept away much of the former ignorance regarding the technical/mechanical aspects of human sexuality, these learned men had failed to account for God’s purposes and will in human sexuality.

As with many other aspects of traditional Christianity, Herbert believed that Catholic and Protestant attitudes toward sex were directly borrowed from the pagans. He wrote: “Christianity, following its first generation, absorbed the pagan dualism of Greece, and pasted the label ‘sinful’ on sex. Through the centuries since, the moral standards of the Western world were regulated by the Roman Catholic Church.” (Chapter 1, The Missing Dimension) “What, then, was the real source of this attitude of shame?” he asked. “It flowed on the tide of the Babylonian Mystery religion into the Roman world,” he answered. “It reached the Roman world by way of Greece, but it flowed, at an earlier date, into Greece from Egypt,” Herbert explained.

Was Herbert right about the source of Christian shame about human sexuality? Interestingly, HistoryExtra (the official website for the BBC History Magazine) informs us that “To the ancient Greek mythologisers, sexuality, love and sex were inextricably connected with the creation of the earth, the heavens and the underworld. Greek myth was a theogony of incest, murder, polygamy and intermarriage in which eroticism and fertility were elemental; they were there right from the start, demonstrating woman’s essential reproductive role in securing the cosmos, extending the human race and ensuring the fecundity of nature.” (see the article “A brief history of sex and sexuality in Ancient Greece”) The article, along with many other reputable sources, does not leave us with the impression that the ancient Greeks were puritanical about sexual matters.

Indeed, Mr. Armstrong later acknowledges that, according to the Bible, the ultimate source of human attitudes with regard to shame about our bodies and their functions was Satan. In the first chapter of Genesis, we read that God pronounced everything that “He” had created (including both genders of humans and their reproductive systems) as being “very good!” (see Genesis 1:36-31) In fact, the very next chapter concludes with the statement: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (see Genesis 2:25) It was only after they ate the forbidden fruit that “the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.” (see Genesis 3:1-7)

Although Herbert delighted in denigrating and dismissing scientific notions about evolution and the interrelatedness of all life on this planet, the fact is that human reproduction shares a great many similarities with plant reproductive systems and even more with those of the animal life that shares this planet with us. Indeed, all sexual reproduction is characterized by a male gamete fertilizing a female gamete to produce a zygote – which then eventually develops into a mature form of whatever plant, animal or human we’re talking about. From a theist’s perspective, God has designed a wonderful system for the perpetuation of life on this planet (a system of which we humans have our own version). And, when we think of human reproduction in these terms, it seems absurd to characterize any part of that system/process as shameful, evil or unnatural!

Finally, Herbert had a great deal to say about the application of God’s law to the proper uses of human sexuality. In the end, his basic formula was that all sex outside of the institution of marriage is sinful. Was he correct? How should God’s law be applied to the phenomenon of human sexuality?

Jesus Christ said that the entire law could be summarized in two great principles: love of God and love of neighbor. (see Matthew 22, Mark 12 and Luke 10) Paul told the Romans that love fulfills the law. (see Romans 13) Hence, it seems like we would be on safe ground (in terms of Scripture) to characterize any behavior (sexual or otherwise) that is based on love and that doesn’t hurt/harm yourself or someone else as being comprehended within the boundaries of God’s law.

Of course, we are speaking here of God’s great fundamental law known to most of us a “The Ten Commandments.” But doesn’t one of those commandments specifically address the subject of human sexuality? Yes, the seventh commandment states “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” (see Exodus 20:14) So, here we have a direct command from Almighty God that “He” expects us to be sexually faithful to the person we marry – that God expects us to honor the commitment which we have made to that person. Christ expanded on this when he told his disciples “That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (see Matthew 5:28) Notice too that this cannot be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of all sexual desire (which the Creator had to place within us, if “He” indeed created us), because marriage is implicit in the very concept of adultery!

“What about all of those scriptures that deal with fornication?” my Armstrong inspired friends will ask. Just a little checking with Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (either online or in the printed form) will quickly demonstrate that both the Hebrew and Greek words which are translated thus into English encompass any sexual behavior which is considered deviant (and the Hebrew word also implies idolatry in the sense of God considering Israel to be married to Him). Many Christians are surprised to learn that it is human reasoning that has made this word mean premarital sex – that there is no specific condemnation in all of Scripture regarding human sexual behavior prior to that commitment being made to another human being!

As for procreation in marriage being the only justification for human sexual intercourse, Mr. Armstrong himself blasts that notion. According to him, there are three God-ordained purposes for sex: marriage, reproduction and “the expression of marital love and companionship.” (see Chapter 11) And, although Herbert doesn’t directly quote Scripture to back up his conclusion in this instance, common sense and experience inform us that there is much more motivating human sexuality than the desire to produce offspring.

Likewise, Herbert insisted that masturbation was also sinful, harmful and disgusting. He wrote: “On the other hand, masturbation is a form of PERVERSION. It is a SIN! It does harm the boy — or the man — physically, over a period of twelve to twenty-four hours by dulling the mind, even causing a partial blurring of sight, and acting as a partial anesthetic to the memory. Often a boy will experience absent-minded proclivities following masturbation.” (see Chapter 12) And, once again, no scriptural basis for this prohibition is listed (probably because you cannot find one in the Bible). As with many other of his teachings, Mr. Armstrong arrived at his conclusions about masturbation based on human reasoning – extrapolating principles based on scriptures dealing with other matters!

And remember the Greeks mentioned early on in Herbert’s treatise as being responsible for traditional Christian prudery about things sexual? The article referenced earlier in this post tells us that “To the ancient Greeks, masturbation was a normal and healthy substitute for other sexual pleasures – a handy ‘safety valve’ against destructive sexual frustration. This may explain why there are so few references to it in the literature: it was common practice and did not merit much attention.” Continuing, we are informed that “Other ancient civilizations celebrated masturbation too. For example, a clay figurine of the 4th millennium BC from Malta shows a woman masturbating. In ancient Sumer [the first ancient urban civilization in the historical region of southern Mesopotamia, modern-day southern Iraq] masturbation – either solitary or with a partner – was thought to enhance potency. In ancient Egypt male masturbation when performed by a god was considered a creative or magical act: Atum was said to have created the universe by masturbating, and the ebb and flow of the Nile was attributed to the frequency of his ejaculations. Egyptian Pharaohs were required to masturbate ceremonially into the Nile.” (see HistoryExtra)

Can we begin to see that Herbert Armstrong’s notions about human sexuality were flawed and can hardly be said to be authoritative? Can we see that many of the very principles which he expounded upon in his treatise were based on flawed human reasoning and have little or NO basis in Scripture?

Think about the harm that these teachings have caused – especially among the young people of the church. I’m reminded of Christ’s admonishment of the Scribes and Pharisees “For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.” (see Matthew 23:4) Can you imagine trying to live up to these standards as a young person who has begun dating? How ironic! Mr. Armstrong expected them to deny the very desires, appetites and hormones which God had placed within them! Yeah, I’m thinking a reevaluation of the acceptance of these Armstrong notions about human sexuality is long overdue!

Miller Jones