Exposing the underbelly of Armstrongism in all of its wacky glory! Nothing you read here is made up. What you read here is the up to date face of Herbert W Armstrong's legacy. It's the gritty and dirty behind the scenes look at Armstrongism as you have never seen it before!
With all the new crazy self-appointed Chief Overseers, Apostles, Prophets, Pharisees, legalists, and outright liars leading various Churches of God today, it is important to hold these agents of deception accountable.
Herbert Armstrong's Tangled Web of Corrupt Leaders
The following was on the Non Seventh-day Adventist - never to returnFacebook page. Adventistism has the same issues that Armstrongism has, which isn't surprising since we all have the same bad roots in Millerism.
Pastor chasing has been the face of the Church of God since its very creation. People chased HWA in the 1930's when they broke off from the Stansbury COG. Then, GTA took his groupies with him when he was finally kicked out of the WCG.
Look at how people followed Rod Meredith from one failed church to the next, in spite of all the corruption that was on display.
Then, we got to watch as the apostates Dave Pack and Bob Thiel broke off with their own groupies. However, with Bob, it is less about groupies following him than opportunists who saw a gullible American with money who needed his narcissistic ego stroked. One thing is for certain with his African followers, "pastor chasing" is big over there, all thanks to Adventistism and Armstrongism.
This is sure to set Bob Thiel and others off as this is in direct rebellion against their idea of church members kowtowing to their imagined church government power structure.
Millions of Christians have placed pastors in front of their lives, when the real Shepherd should be Jesus Christ.
Pastors are leaders who want followers. They also want your money. They want you to believe they know and understand truth. They want you to regard them as special. They want your endless lifelong support.
If they were real shepherds, they would point you to Jesus Christ and not to themselves. If they were real shepherds they would follow Jesus Christ, instead of following man-made traditions themselves.
The "clergy/laity" system is a man-made tradition of long standing. Do you know any "pastors" who refuse to have personal followers
Did Jesus Christ ever teach "follow your pastors" and be pastor chasers
The purpose driven church would lead you to believe that pastors are your infallible, inerrant spiritual leaders. They would also have you believe that you cannot live without your pastors.
The one great fear all church pastors of every persuasion have is that you will STOP following them and their teachings. The reason is because when Christians STOP following pastors, then pastors will lose their power, their prestige, their comfort zone, their free money, their pride, their position, their authority. When this happens, people will only have one chose left either they follow Jesus Christ, or they reject Jesus Christ
. Does anyone ever consider that chasing pastors is a rejection of Jesus Christ? Is it complete heresy to say that churches are idols of worship? Do we worship pastors and churches, or do we worship our heavenly Father in Spirit and in truth?
In yet another post attempting to refute my own post about the early Church, “Dr” Bob Thiel has returned to the subject of “First Century: Saturday or Sunday.” I’ll give Bob one thing – He clearly recognizes that this history goes to the heart of the viability of the Armstrong Churches of God’s teachings about Torah observance and the continuing obligation of “TRUE” Christians to keep the Sabbath. For Bob, the real history of the early Church represents an existential threat to Armstrongism! He understands that the narrative about when Sunday observance began is essential to the ACOG’s raison d’etre!
First, the narrative which I presented about the Council of Jerusalem was Scriptural and recognized by most scholars as reflecting what actually happened there. You can’t get much more objective than artificial intelligence (unperturbed by human biases), and my Bing copilot has this to say about that event: “The Council of Jerusalem was a conference of the Christian Apostles in Jerusalem about 50 CE. It was held to decide as to the authority of the law of Moses and adjust the difference between Jewish and Gentile Christianity. The council decreed that Gentile Christians did not have to observe the Mosaic Law of the Jews. It is considered by Catholics and Orthodox to be a prototype and forerunner of the later ecumenical councils and a key part of Christian ethics.”
Likewise, BibleGateway’s Encyclopedia of the Bible had this to say about that event:
“COUNCIL OF JERUSALEM (συνέδριον, G5284; tr. “council” in every occurrence in the NT, RSV. Heb. סַנְהֶדְרִין), Biblical meaning: “an ecclesiastical assembly for deciding matters of doctrine or discipline” (RHD). Used in reference to the first general church Council recorded in Acts 15, where the word “council” per se does not occur; not to be confused with the Jewish Sanhedrin.
1. The Council’s occasion and issue. The Council of Jerusalem most likely occurred about a.d. 48 or 49, and prob. between the first and second missionary journeys of Paul, following a temporary visit of Paul and Barnabas to the church at Antioch of Syria. In Acts 15:1-5 Luke describes the occasion for the Council. Galatians 2:1-10 is now viewed by most scholars as Paul’s general, though non-chronological, account of the same event.
Certain believing Christian Jews of the sect of the Pharisees (commonly known as Judaizers) regarded submission to Jewish legal rites, but circumcision in particular, as essential to the salvation of the Gentiles and their admission to membership in the Christian Church (Acts 15:1). Representatives of this sect visited the flourishing Jew-Gentile Christian Church at Antioch of Syria as purported emissaries of the Jerusalem apostles (Gal 2:12), while Paul and Barnabas were ministering there, and evidently during a temporary visit of Peter also (2:11). Their insistence upon circumcision of the Gentile believers as essential to personal salvation and to membership in the Church appeared to Paul to negate faith in Christ as adequate for justification, and thus in effect render void Christ’s death on the cross (2:21). Paul stoutly withstood them and even severely rebuked Peter for his social, though perhaps nonreligious, segregation (2:11-20). Peter’s reprehensible conduct was most likely due to fear produced by the ostentation of the Judaizers at Antioch, rather than by any disposition to compromise the vital issue of the conditions for Gentile salvation. However, even in this he was not guiltless (see Acts 11:1-18). These Judaizers precipitated the single greatest crisis of the Early Church, and one of the greatest of all church history. They threatened a cleavage within the Jew-Gentile Christian Church that might never have been healed, and which might well have precluded the universal worldmission of the Gospel.
The decision to send a delegation, including Paul and Barnabas, from Antioch to the Jerusalem mother church for an official decision in the dispute evidently had a twofold authorization; (1) the Antioch church (Acts 15:2, 3), and (2) divine revelation (Gal 2:1, 2; cf. Acts 13:2-4). Titus, an uncircumcised Gr. believer, was among the “certain other” delegates (15:2) sent to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1, 2) where he became a test case. Paul refused to yield to the demands of the Judaizers at the Jerusalem Council that Titus be circumcised, lest by such a concession they win the right of their position before the Council and thus impose the burden of the Mosaic law upon all Gentile believers. Paul was sustained by the Council and Titus later became one of his most trusted co-workers in the Gentile world mission.” (See Encyclopedia of the Bible: Council of Jerusalem)
Hence, it is easily verifiable that the narrative which I presented about the Jerusalem Council was neither novel nor inconsistent with the understanding of the vast majority of Biblical scholarship on the subject. Indeed, what I posted about the Jerusalem Council is sustained by simply opening your own copy of the Bible to Acts 15 or typing that event into the search engine on your own computer! In other words, it doesn’t take a whole lot of intensive research and effort!
Similarly, the ACOG’s narrative about the adoption of Pagan practices by the Church has been thoroughly discredited by both Biblical and historical scholars. Once again, as Herbert Armstrong used to say, “you don’t have to take my word for it” – the veracity of my assertions on the subject are easily verified with a few clicks of your own computer. (See Christian Sunday Observance Did NOT Originate in Pagan Practices) Sure, the Romans referred to the first day of the week as the day of the Sun, but they also referred to the Sabbath as the day of Saturn. Once again, all four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) affirm that the resurrected Jesus appeared to his disciples on the first day of the week – the one that the pagans referred to as Sunday! To ignore the importance of that event (Christ’s resurrection) to early Christians is tantamount to discounting a great deal of the text of the New Testament!
Finally, I have provided numerous links to the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers over the years (See Early Christian Writings: Church Fathers). Once again, the truth of my assertions are only a few clicks away on your own computer! I have also included many excerpts from these writings in previous posts on this subject (See Early Christianity: From Sabbath to Sunday). Unfortunately, Bob’s narrative about Church history does NOT square with the available evidence from both Scripture and history. The Sabbath pointed to our rest in Christ (See Hebrews 4). Unlike Bob, I have no animus for the Sabbath, and I have no special attachment to Sunday (Indeed, I continue to personally observe the Sabbath). Nevertheless, Bob’s narrative that there was a Great Conspiracy to suppress Sabbath observance and replace it with the pagan Sunday is simply NOT consistent with the available evidence.
Holy Batman, what the hell did I just watch? The Great Bwana to Africa and the occasional 100 Caucaisians has decided that he needs to release a bunch of YouTube "shorts" as a witnessing tool to the world.
These have to be the most pathetic things I have ever watched! He can't even read his own scripts properly. From talking too fast to long pauses as he forgets where he is in the script, and more.
Is he not embarrassed by this?
Has he no shame?
YouTube "shorts" currently can't be embedded so look for them here, particularly these two:
How can any Church of God member ever trust what a church leader says when this kind of idiocy is bantered about?
"Some have questioned whether or not Dr. Meredith could have ever held the mantle, because of his character issues. Well, he may have. Like A.N. Dugger, if Dr. Meredith had the mantle he lost it. And he would have lost it no later than December 2011.
Another possibility is that the late evangelist Dibar Apartian had it. Dibar Apartian was originally not certain if he should follow Dr. Meredith into the old Global Church of God, but finally did. Over the years, Dibar Apartian kept telling me to get Dr. Meredith and the other LCG evangelists to correct their mistakes. On October 16, 2008, at the Feast of Tabernacles in Evian, France in 2008, Dibar Apartian specifically told me that he suspected that I "was the one," meaning the one to lead the work and possess the mantle in the end—and that came from Dibar Apartian, not me--he provided further confirmation of that in 2009 and 2010. Dibar Apartian also had major problems with LCG and started to be more vocal about them before his death in 2010. His urging of me to do what I did, could have been the transferring of the mantle, but I am not certain.
It is also possible that Aaron Dean had it before me. He was Herbert W. Armstrong top advisor until he died and tried to dissuade Joseph Tkach from apostasy. If so, the actual mantle would have passed to Bob Thiel no later than he was anointed to receive a double-portion of God's Spirit
Has the church ever had a bigger liar than what it currently has in Bob Thiel? Even the gargantuan lies of Dave Pack pale in comparison to the bosh Thiel regularly pumps out.
People are getting uptight because I am mentioning more and more Mr. Aaron Dean in relation to the Worldwide Church of God.
Some are saying, that I'm trying to force him to take the leadership role or push him into it.
I'm not.
God is going to thrust the man He wants into the spotlight.
But for all of you who haven't made up your mind whether the truth that was given us through Mr. Herbert W Armstrong has any value to hold fast to, let me say something.
When you find yourself in the Great Tribulation....Maybe the name Aaron Dean will mean something, maybe it won't.
I think you are going to find, that when these organizations ARE DESTROYED by Europe, and you are wondering where God's people went...there won't be any more chains on the ministry locking them to all these groups.
So I am emphasizing support of the ministry when they repent. Those who I am warning, are the Laodicean brethren who may not make it to the Place of Safety. So with this warning I am confident Mr. Aaron Dean will do what Christ wants him to do. And whether or not Mr. Dean or someone else is there, you needed the reminder. Samuel Kitchen
One thing the Church of God is good at is fleecing its members for money by claiming everyone must tithe 10%. Then, on top of that, 2nd tithe, excess 2nd tithe, 3rd tithe, a tithe of the tithe, special offerings, building funds, and co-worker appeal letters. The real gospel of the church is money.
Tithing has been a lie that has taken over the church for decades. Even the new splinter groups who had a chance to do things right still incorporated tithing into their belief systems. Who could blame them though, how else were these ministers going to maintain their privileged lifestyles? UCG and Global/LCG were particularly good at this as they started collecting tithe money from their "soon-to-be" followers secretly and putting it in the bank in order to have a steady income once they jumped ship from the mother church as they claimed apostasy.
Originally, ancient Israel was an agrarian society. All that means is most of the nation's wealth was generated in a field somewhere. That is why you will only see tithes of the farm, field, orchard, or flock. That is why you hear of the Pharisees tithing of mint, anise, and cumin (DEU. 14: 22). Note: the church leaders tithed. You will not find a verse where tithes came from money. Or fish, for that matter. You can turn a tithe into money in order to make it easier to transport, but it was not money originally. (Does your Minister accept tomatoes?)
Some did have "income" as we understand it, because there were tradesmen and specialists in that agrarian society. Somebody had to cut stone and build houses and smith bronze and craft the clay and fletch arrows, and etc. That tent aint gonna weave itself! Yet, you never see a verse commanding them to tithe on their pay. It is implied that money income was donated, but it is never directly commanded that money income was tithed. Some forms of income simply were not tithed upon.
So, we are back to tithing on farm, field, orchard, or flock. Here, the one-in-ten system becomes necessary. To explain how the one-in-ten tithing system worked, let us imagine some shepherds.
Once a year, the shepherds would all gather in their area to have their flocks counted. We were reminded by Miller Jones in the comments on this post that it wasn't the whole flock that was counted, but the increase of the flock. An important point to mention! (No one tithes on everything they currently own, but the new income. Or else tithing would guarantee poverty.) For the count, the new sheep were caused to pass under a rod. Every tenth sheep was given.
(LEV. 27: 32) And concerning the tithe of the herd or the flock, of whatever passes under the rod, the tenth one shall be holy to the Lord.
Let's say for example there is a poor shepherd who has three new sheep.
Under a one-in-ten system: This poor shepherd brings his three sheep to be counted. There is no tenth sheep to give, so he ends up giving nothing at all.
Under a system of 10%: He would have to cut three-tenths of one sheep and hand it over. That leaves him with two and seven-tenths sheep.
Let's say for example there is a more successful shepherd with twenty-nine new sheep.
Under a one-in-ten system: This shepherd brings his twenty-nine sheep to be counted. As the tenth passes under the rod, he hands it over. As the twentieth passes under the rod, he surrenders it over as well. Since there is no thirtieth sheep, nothing further is taken from him.
Under a system of 10%: He would have to surrender two whole sheep, then cut nine-tenths of a third sheep and hand it over. That leaves him with twenty six and one-tenth sheep.
Do you see the difference?
Let's do what is un-biblical and turn this tithe example into one of money. I only do this because so many people think of tithing in terms of money income, although that "biblical" idea is not in the Bible anywhere.
Ten percent of $19.98 is $1.99. One-in-ten of $19.98 is $1.00.
Ten percent of $983.75 is $98.37. One-in-ten of $983.75 is $98.00.
Same starting amounts, different tithe. The two systems are similar but not the same.
There is a tangible difference between 10% and one-in-ten. What is that poor shepherd supposed to do with that seven-tenths of a sheep, exactly? Plus, with one-in-ten you never have to round up.
If you understand how tithing really worked, it makes the ridiculousness of the Pharisees even greater. They didn't just weigh their herbs and spices then hand over 10%. No. If they were doing it as expected, then they had to count it all out and give one out of every ten. Talk about strain at a gnat and swallow a camel! Doing all of that fastidious counting, but missing the law of love almost completely.
The law of love in Armstrongism has always been missing. Fastidious lawkeeping has always reigned supreme.
The church has never relied upon sound doctrine but upon the wild ravings of mad men leading it. They turned their itching ears away from the truth decades ago and that's why we are stuck with such fools as Bob Thiel, Dave Pack, Ron Wenland, and Gerald Flurry.
Millions of Christians have placed pastors in front of their lives, when the real Shepherd should be Jesus Christ. 
