Talk:Worldwide Church of God/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Please Sign

Please sign all your comments with 4 tilde back to back without spaces.Hopquick 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Sources Please

There needs to be a severe scrutinization of the "facts" here, specifically the timeline. All edits "must be based on verifiable sources." I am not even making a qualitative statement about the veracity of the items. It is just that the majority of them are cited in any way. Many points seem come from Mr. Armstrong's autobiography, so that would be a good place to start. Hopquick 15:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia:No_original_research, Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The edits were based on verifiable sources, it's just... well, to be honest, I had no idea how to cite sources by Wikipedia standards at the time I edited the article. If I get time, I'll do it; but in the meantime, if someone wants to help me out, please feel free to do so. Everything can be found in the external links at the end of the article. -- SwissCelt 23:58, 23 December The 005 (UTC)

Other Comments

When I found that this page only directed to the article on Herbert W. Armstrong, I decided to change the redirect, under the concept that the Worldwide Church of God, especially now, exists independently of Armstrong and deserves its own article. - Rlvaughn 02:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Added an Organizational Structure section with additional information about, well, the organization's structure. Taken from the denomination's own administrative manual. - Mattroyal 00:21, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Addition of new material

While I fully appreciate and accept that in 2004 the Worldwide Church of God no longer teaches the same doctrines that were expounded by Herbert W. Armstrong, it is impossible to dismiss the prior history of the church as though it and Herbert W. Armstrong were one and the same, because clearly they were not.

To this end I have not made any changes to the latter material since the death of Herbert W. Armstrong, which I have now placed under a new paragraph heading which shows a brief history of the church from 1986 until 2004.

What I have added is the reason for the original name of the church (Radio Church of God) which was tied to broadcasting and I have explained the reason why it was tied to broadcasting by adding the original motto of the church which was taken from Matthew 24:14. I have also introduced the persons of Herman Hoeh and Stanley Rader.

Herman Hoeh was introduced because he was the author of the "19 years time cycle" that became the blueprint for the church between 1953 and 1972. That blueprint was also tied to broadcasting and its failure led to the beginning of the end of the church under Herbert W. Armstrong.

I have introduced Stanely Rader because he tried to defend the church in the media (with Mike Wallace on CBS' 60 Minutes) and in the courts. He was also the architect of the new direction of the church from 1972 through 1980 when AICF was created and the concert series began in the Ambassador Auditorium.

The total collapse of the old era of the church came between 1980 and 1986 when Herbert W. Armstrong died and the new era begun. However, the new era still revolves around the old era since the main activity of the shrinking church is selling off the Pasadena property which in and of itself has become newsworthy and because the new leadership took over from the old leadership under the existing charter.

Until the church removes its headquarters from the old Ambassador College campus in Pasadena, it will remain tied to its past. There is speculation that once that removal finally takes place that the church may undergo one final change in its name.

I have created new pages for The World Tomorrow program and Ambassador College and a redirect from Ambassador University, since these two pages are actually subjects linking to Pirate Radio and to Ambassador Auditorium, although I have not as yet created that page, but I intend to do so.

I would imagine that if or when the church moves from the old Ambassador College campus and perhaps changes its name, then at that time it would be appropriate for another page to be added under that new name (whatever that happens to be), that makes no reference to the past eras except by way of links at the bottom of that page to other pages on Wikipedia. MPLX/MH 18:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious about the why of the last two edits by 203.109.254.50, removing two splinter groups. - Rlvaughn 01:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe the deleted groups were spurious, as they appear on no reliable lists of splinters. : Peachgrove 09:58, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They appear on this list - WCG splits - which is on the WCG website. - Rlvaughn 16:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm curious, do you think the list on the Worldwide Church of God website is not reliable, or are you not aware of it? If that is a reliable list of splinters, IMO we should add those two back to the list. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 12:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The most reliable list of splinters and indeed the most reliable source of general information about anything at all to do with the Worldwide Church of God is found on Gavin's New Zealand web site Ambassador Watch which maintains constant updates of such lists with cooperation from others. Indeed, his site is sort of an open mini-encyclopedia on all such matters. Try that source because I have found it to be the most authoritative and reliable. (By the way I have never met Gavin. He is in NZ and I am in the USA, just in case you wonder if my "plug" is subjective or objective.) The WWCG obviously has one side of a complicated story and as such they have a very clear POV which they try to maintain and as such it is not a reliable source of objective material. MPLX/MH 16:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll check it out. As for POV, I understand; but I have trouble imagining that they are making up names of extra splinter groups, when there is enough to go around! - Rlvaughn 21:50, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, misunderstanding. That's not what I meant. What I meant was that the list is much longer and much more comprehensive and up to date at Gavin's site. Some of the groups came and went. Garner Ted Armstrong left the WCG and started a group, got kicked out of that and started another and now that he is dead, that group has splintered! But there are splinters all over the place. The first major one was in 1972 with the Associated Churches of God which splintered! MPLX/MH 22:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, problem. I was still thinking in terms of Peachgrove's deletions - Church of God (O'Brien) (org. 1970)and Universal Church of God (org. 1985). Perhaps even if those two are legitimate splinters, they should only be added back to the article if they are still in existence. Probably a number of the splits no longer exist. Thanks for the link. - Rlvaughn 01:15, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merged

For some strange reason a very poor article with an almost duplicate name had been created on Wikipedia. It contained no new material and nothing that is not already covered in this article or related articles. I have now asked for the other orphan to be deleted. MPLX/MH 03:21, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made the other one a redirect instead of deleting it. This may be a common miscapitalization -- Chris 73 Talk 05:54, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

From a former member of WCG:

A correction is needed: "Until the church removes its headquarters from the old Ambassador College campus in Pasadena, it will remain tied to its past. There is speculation that once that removal finally takes place that the church may undergo one final change in its name."

The Church's headquarters are in Glendora, CA as of 2005. Ambassador College in Pasadena was sold was sold for development to Legacy Partners for an undisclosed amount in January 1999, nine years after the college moved its operations to Big Sandy, Texas,

(per the Pasadena Star News, November 4, 2000).

Removal has taken place per WCG's own website:

Ambassador College/University was forced to close because the church could no longer subsidize it, and its properties have been sold. The church's properties in Pasadena were greatly underutilized and were sold in 2004. An office building in Glendora has been purchased, and our offices will relocate there in 2005."

http://www.wcg.org/lit/AboutUs/history.htm

142.151.143.157 05:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Change of focus

I'm editing this article to reflect a change of focus from the church post-1996, to the entire church history. There's no reason why this article should be limited to history after 1996. Yes, the church was splintered at that time, but Wikipedia has not found it necessary to ensure that every church which retained a name after a split includes only information from after the split. Besides, the Worldwide Church of God has split at various times in its history, and not just in 1996. -- SwissCelt 18:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I've written a history of the church at History of the Worldwide Church of God, and condensed the same onto the "Timeline" section of this article. However, this still leaves some (or perhaps much) cleanup to be done with the article. Any takers? -- SwissCelt 06:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Reverted 28 July 2005 edits

I reverted several edits from 28 July 2005 by the user at 71.240.190.76. Besides the fact that many of these edits seemed hopelessly POV (even if backed by external links), the purpose of the timeline section is to provide just an outline of the church's history, and not burden the article with a long and detailed history of the church. While editing the page, I found that I had more than enough information to put that history in a separate article: History of the Worldwide Church of God. For the sake of clarity, future edits should go there, and a simple summary of the edit should be put in the timeline. -- SwissCelt 23:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Folks, the "facts" listed on the timeline, under years 1980 and 1981, are not only POV, they're potential grounds for libel. Even if the charge itself is substantiated, the comment "...the Church tried to suppress any publication of the work..." is not.

On a personal note, I'm a bit sick of my edits, which I've clearly explained here in the talk page, being overturned by an anonymous editor who won't even do me the justice of meeting me here in talk to work out our apparent differences. Even simple grammar and spelling edits are getting overturned: Must we capitalize every instance of the word "church"?? I'm not working from a POV here; and even if I were, it certainly wouldn't be in favor of the WCG. I'm going to let this go for a couple days per Wikipedia guidelines, but I'd really like us to reach some sort of consensus here. -- SwissCelt 03:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Is this an NPOV statement (as of the latest revision): "To some extent, these changes were long foretold (and perhaps even somewhat self-fulfilling)" It needs more explaining. Hopquick 21:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted major cropping of article

Glancing over it, I find nothing particularly wrong with the wording of the last edit by the anonymous editor at 69.166.112.140, except that she or he trashed quite a bit of info to do it. Would the editor care to revise his or her edits within the structure of the current article? -- SwissCelt 22:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Article changes

I took the liberty of making various changes for grammar/spelling, format/consistency, punctuation, and polishing up the language in the article. I made an effort to ensure that the factual information was not changed with these edits, but that it would be a smoother read. The references were cleaned up to conform to a standard bibliography format, and I added the ISBN numbers where availble for readers who may want to check these books out on their own time.

Universal translated incorrectly

The reference to the French report is very interesting. But I believe there has been a misleading double translation. "Worldwide" was most likely translated into French as "universelle" and then retranslated back into English as "Universal". So the name is really the same. I also took the opportuniry to remove some pejorative items that were clearly POV.

RelHistBuff 15:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

POV check

I put the POV check template because this article has really suffered. As the origins of the church is controversial with bitter ramifications, lots of POV-oriented anonymous editors have caused lots of damage. This article is a typical example that shows Wikipedia's weakness - leave an article alone and it degrades until it's unrecognizable. It needs a complete rewrite. RelHistBuff 08:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality and quality sources

I have moved the post that was originally in another subsection to this subsection at the bottom in order to bring this into chronological order as in standard practise. I have copied and pasted the post below. RelHistBuff 13:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Many biography aspects are clear and uncontroversial. There is still a very strong emphasis in several areas on only the controversial issues. The fact that the biography focuses on 90% on the last 10 years of this man's life is not surprising given the significance of those last 10 years. However, more empasis could be put on the formative years. In addition, once source (The Ambassador Report) is used for 70-100% of the citations in this and related articles. While The Ambassador Report cannot be entirely excluded as a source (and, arguably, it has provided a useful role in documenting certain factual data such as dates, personalities involved etc.) it is a heavily biased 'publication' (in the UK, it would be called a scandal sheet). There are many issues (including the receivership of the WCG) which are very well documented in the conventional media and I think we (myself included) can work a little harder to use those other sources to produce a well-rounded piece (both in terms of the various periods of this man's life and the various points of view as to his achievements/controversies). In my view, this biography is a long way from that point (not that more volume needs to be written). I note that there are several sincere contributors working on reaching that point. == Anon ==

In response, additional input would be welcome especially in regards to Tkach's role during the receivership years. If you have the sources, please cite them. As for the use of Ambassador Report, please note that I used them only as sources for getting factual data and I was very careful not to include the biased commentary. And although AR is biased against the WCG, note that I also used several sources that are biased for the new WCG. The important point is that the article remains neutral, but the sources where the information is from must be cited as per Wikipedia citation policy. In discussing on these talk pages, please sign your post as per Wikipedia guideline. It makes it easier to keep track of the discussion. RelHistBuff 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
(I'll read the Wiki protocol). Your comments on your use of the Ambassador Report are well taken. However, much of the data is available from pro or neutral sources. A quick google yields some interesting things. Using a scandal sheet as a source, however, seriously undermines the well intentioned work done to date. If I wanted to write a critique of George Bush, I would produce a highly more credible article if I quoted from US News than if I quoted from the National Enquirer (if you take my point). Clearly this entry and related entries cannot be owned by any one individual. Let's work together to produce some quality sources. Quoting from a highly biased publication to satisfy source criteria (not matter carefully selected) is not ideal research practice. User:---- 13:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


Came in via the POV-check tag. I find it reasonably neutrally written, so I'll remove the tag. IT may of course be a complete load of male cow manure, there are still not much references for statements that possibly may be controversial. But otherwise it seems fine to me. Feel free to revert if I'm wrong. :) --Regebro 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Doctrines

I'd like to see a section on major doctrines under armstrong and how/when they changed under the tkaches. I have old church lit from armstrong but need major changes and dates - I linked to the wiki article on Tkach for this. Dr d12 00:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Dr_d12

Near the beginning the statement "For its first 50+ years, the Worldwide Church of God was somewhat unique in its doctrinal teachings" is not only vague, but should be further interrogated, particularly with regard to parallels with doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists etc. I also agree w/ Dr d12 that an overview of significant Armstrongist doctrinal revisions under the Tkaches is in order, but overview would be appropriate to an encyclopedia entry w/ links to external sources for further research. LiteratPJ 20:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

POV REDUX

This article (as well as the one for Garner Ted Armstrong, seems to lay GTA's downfall almost completely on "moral failure". I was in a Master of Divinity program in California at the time of Garner Ted's "Excomunication" and I remember that there was a lot of excitement by Evangelicals about the fact that Garner Ted had renounced the "heretical" beliefs of his father and was thrown out by the old man because he was trying to take the Worldwide Church Of Gos firmly into the Evangelical Christian camp. I KNOW there has to be source material out there from Evangelical magazines from the time that upholds this view. The question is whether it is important enough to the Wiki articles to dig for it. 67.80.157.45 02:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)From Jebbrady Both reasons for excommunication fit squarely within H.W. Armstrong's stated beliefs, church practice and church history--and the members of the church all knew this. Expressing in the article the evangelical side of the equation or not expressing it is, in either case, neutral POV in my view. So then why not put more information in than less--if it is verifiable.

Receivership versus Jim Jones

I recall a lot of connection made between the 1978 suicide of Jim Jones and the receivership of both WCG and other fringe churches in California, but no mention is made of this in the article. The timing is too great to ignore, and frankly, I think it gives too much credit to GTA that he could get California to press charges without the political atmosphere that was created by the Peoples Temple suicides. The only sources I have off hand is my memory, perhaps someone can weigh in? HangFire 04:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bigoted Sensationalism: Prove Assertions or They'll Be Deleted

Until the follwing outrageous allegation is legitimately proved with citation directly referenced within the passage itself, it will remain deleted.

"Rader, with the approval of Herbert Armstrong, was spending millions to fend off any financial audit or examination of the Church's income and expenditures by litigating the issue all the way from California to the United States Supreme Court, several times, unsuccessfully."

Armstrong always partially credited the exoneration of the Church with the fact that the internal audits and accounting in general was kept meticulously clean and transparent. Why then would he "spend millions" to keep the law from viewing them? This passage is sensationalistic hearsay and amounts to the kind of religion bashing and bigotry through "scandal" mongering I've come to expect in articles relating to H.W. Armstrong. 67.80.157.45 02:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Tabloid Approach and Religious Discrimination

This article is filled with unfounded allegations, innuendo, and hearsay, yet amazingly fails to mention any of the positive activities of the old Worldwide under Herbert W. Armstrong that I recall and that research verifies, nor his remarkable friendships with world leaders and the honors he received abroad, including the award given to him by the king of Belgium which only three other men had ever received, including the legendary British Prime minister David Lloyd George. At the very least this constitutes the strong appearance of religious bigotry, something that is disastrous to Wikipedia.

Armstrong's own biography documents how he continuously had enemies who hated or felt threatened by the doctrines he taught and the popularity he attained. I think it's interesting that the leadership that took over the WCG and who destroyed Armstrong’s life work and legacy, themselves never actually even resorted to trying to attack his legacy by dredging up past allegations made by unstable, disgruntled excommunicated members (who were taking advantage of the climate of suspicion toward non-mainstream religious groups caused by the Jim Jones tragedy). Members of the WCG were too close to the facts at that time--too close to the original events and the quality of character and lack of credibility of the accusers was commonly known by members. The knew better than to be taken in by that.

Regardless, this is an encyclopedia, and I will do my utmost from this point forward to maintain Wikipedia's reputation as a legitimate source of information. Wikipedia has come under fire because of articles like this, and it is losing a measure of the credibility that it deserves after all the hard work by those who care--and that truly is a shame. Wikipedia being used as a forum for religion bashing, discrimination and slander will no longer be tolerated in this quarter, even if I have to fight the battle all the way to the top. I already did that with the Herbert W. Armstrong article, and am prepared to do that now. Be forewarned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.157.45 (talk • contribs) 04:54, March 4, 2007

I am adding a post script to this comment; as a former member of the WCG, the legacy of this organisation continues to colour my life. I grew up in the church from 1978 to the mid nineties when my family eventually left, disillusioned and disheartened to learn that everything they based their lives on was a lie.
Nowhere on this site are people told about the hardline fundamentalists who decided to take an inventory of their life earnings and pay the back tithes on what they earned previous to joining the church (though this was somewhat discouraged, they still took the money), usually resulting in poverty. What about the people who were not considered to have biblically justifiable marriages after a divorce and how the church forced them to divorce their spouses and break up their families to be members? How about people who had to give up jobs to attend church on the Sabbath or risk excommnication?
There is a brief reference to the shame bestowed upon people who left the church and their public humiliation among the congregation. Worse still were those that came back and were further persecuted. The list of unwritten "sub rules" that were set up like; no long hair, piercings, the restrictions against celebrating birthdays, etc. so that anyone not familiar with the "sub rules" were looked down upon by others. Let's not forget the infighting and conflicts in doctrine between the church pastors and and their higher ups, not to mention the rumours and gossip among members that fed this fruit of a poisoned tree in the local churches.
This church was a complete fraud in every aspect of it's existence. It destroyed people's lives. The bitterness and hatred I felt towards organised religion took years to subside, and is probably not thoroughly sated. But when I hear people like this trying to say "look at all the good HWA did..." I know you, the previous author who does not sign their name, have no idea what you are talking about. HWA was a figurehead, there was a lot that he did not control in the organisation, and if he did, I would hold him more accountable for the misery that the WCG inflicted on its members. I lived in this climate of authoritarian fundamentalist legalism for 20 years, and it taught me nothing but denial, guilt and fear. Template:Power, March 7th, 2007; feel free to discuss this with me at deejayarson@yahoo.ca
I identify with and completely agree with the recent comments by power. There are ex-member pages that discuss the powerful negative effects that the Worldwide Church of God and its authoritarian power structure had on members. These sites include the Exit & Support Network, The Painful Truth, XCG, The Ambassador Report and Non-Believer Former-Members of the Worldwide Church of God. These sites are all listed in the "External links" section of the article, but they are not presented in the body of the article. Perhaps what we need is a detractor's section where these sites are at least referred to, and the main points to be made against the WCG can be *carefully stated. (*careful wording might help avoid some of the inevitable reverts from those who believe absolutely in the ideals of the WCG and HWA). Yes, these sites have an anti-WCG point of view, but surely you can agree that the Autobiography of HWA and the websites of the WCG itself have a vested interest in the polar opposite point of view. Dr d12 02:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Holy Days

Someone added a list of Holy Days under the section on sin and God's commandments. It's nice to see the list here but it's not an encyclopedic tone so it should be re-written - it would be good if someone could include a description of the religious representation of each holy day together with a short description of how it was actually observed. (The article needs work but it isn't as POV and misleading as some are saying. Too much emotion when one is defending their belief system) Dr d12 18:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

40 sermons later...

I am removing the following recent addition to the timeline:

    • "The New Covenant and the Sabbath" sermon was given by Mr. Joseph W. Tkach Sr. in Atlanta, Georgia, December 17, 1994. Mr. Tkach died on September 23, 1995 exactly 40 Sabbaths from the day of his sermon on "The New Covenant".

I already removed a similar comment from an IP edit earlier this week because the length of time between an arbitrary sermon and Tkach's death from natural causes is superfluous. Unless it is meant to imply that God arranged for Tkach to die 40 sermons later and that the number 40 holds religious significance? Then it should definitely be deleted. Dr d12 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

...and it's already been reverted. Dr d12 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not meant to imply that God arranged the death of Mr. Tkack. It is a curious fact. The number 40 in the Bible signifies severe trial. Zipless2 23:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

List of holy days grossly incorrect?

I was never in the WCG, but I was in the CGI and am in the ICG, and I believe their holy days to be almost the same. I'm not going to edit the article directly because I'm afraid something I say here might have been different in the WCG, but I don't think I'm that off.

Also they're more or less Christian versions of the same days Jews observe. The Feast of Trumpets (aka Rosh Hashana) is not always on a Saturday (weekly Sabbath), it only falls on Saturday by coincidence. And it's in the fall. The Day of Atonement (aka Yom Kippur) is also in the fall, after Trumpets, before the Feast of Tabernacles. The Feast of Tabernacles is only 1 week, not two. Maybe the world wide extended the celebration, I don't know, but even if they did I'm sure they recognized the actual holy day was only 7 days plus the 8th last great day, and any extra days of celebrations were extrabiblical. Also the last great day is usually considered it's own Holy Day.


The Night To Be Much Observed/Remembered isn't quite considered a Holy Day usually. It's the night after the foot washing and bread and wine ceremony. That ceremony, also called the Lord's Supper, is considered much more important, is the night before the traditional Jewish Passover, and is the Holy Day sometimes called Passover. (Though at least in the ICG, many prefer to use the term Lord's Supper to differentiate it from the Jewish Passover).

Pentecost comes from Leviticus, not just from Acts. It's always on a Sunday, although I believe the WCG orignally observed it on Monday, but then decided they were wrong and changed it to Sunday. I believe they usually had a weekend long celebration that included the Saturday, Sunday, and Monday.

The current section sounds like it was written by someone who was a kid in the WCG and still hasn't grown up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.228.189.127 (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

I changed the holy days section to a list of links to the corresponding Wikipedia entries. Any major differences between the links and the WCG tradition could be noted after the link. The Feast of Unleavened Bread forwards to a Passover page, but not the same passover page as the passover link so you might want to double check that one. The unleavened bread page might need to be changed from a redirect. Dr d12 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason we don't put them in chronological order? 71.228.189.127 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, WCG observed an eighth day after the seven-day Feast of Tabernacles, called "The Last Great Day". It was regarded as a separate event (they referred to the seven annual observances, and the LGD was the final one of the year). Previous poster above named it but failed to capitalize it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.207.189 (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Documentation

Article is now well documented. Achieving a more neutral POV would be difficult, given the history of scandals. They now seem to be reported objectively, along with the revamped Church. Removed Wiki tags DisputeCheck and noncompliant.

The greatest need now is to delete redundancies in the article, improve the organization. Oberlin 04:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


67.80.157.45 23:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)From Jebbrady

It's not difficult to take issue with your claim that the article is now objectively presented. Can you explain the lack of a single mention of anything positive H.W. Armstrong ever did through the church--the WCG?.

Second, saying this article is well documented is problematic at best. As soon as it moves into the areas of "scandal", the "well documented" seems to disappear; Does anyone here think, as I do, that a trained historian must automatically question the use of any primary source material in which the author was not only a mere particpant in the events in question, and whose objectivity is in serious question? I've seen church officials who bitterly contended with and tried to usurp Armstrong's authority cited...religiously.. in the Wikipedia articles that have had to do with Armstrong. This practice is about to end.

Third, you said "Achieving a more neutral POV would be difficult, given the history of scandals." A little common sense show it's the opposite: the POV is reflected by the attention to "scandals" and the way they are described. From here on out, any source material constituting the slightest appearance of conflict of interest, of personal axes to grind, and the explotation of Wikipedia by WCG current and former officials in self-serving PR and mud slinging, is about to be annhilated.

If you think I will have difficulty obtaining support from wikipedia officials, better do a little research on what happened with some of the other articles that have been reformed these past seven months concerning the life of H.W.Armstrong.

The only issue is whether or not the editors of this article are going to be disciplined for their actions with this article. I haven't decide whether it's worth pursuing that yet or not.

Appearance of Religious Bigotry, and Lack of Legitimate Scholarship

The articles on Wikipedia that have to do with Herbert W. Armstrong have, in the past, been plagued both by the strong appearance of religious bigotry and the strong appearance of self-serving corrupting of the facts by people who were involved in the affairs of the Church over the years. This article does presently. Wikipedia and it's community obviously deserve better than this.

With all the attention to "scandal," there is, amazingly,the abscence of a single reference to anything positive that he ever did or was involved in through the Church. This means the total omission of the the humanitarian projects he was involved in, and the remarkable, prestigious honors Armstrong received from famous and powerful world leaders. He was given a special watch made from the casing of a WW I shell By the King of Belgium for his efforts "as an unofficial ambassador of world peace", the other three recipients being David Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Marshal Foche. He was involved in numerous community projects, including the building of a resplendent world class auditorium in Pasadena where Pavarotti, Rubenstein, Horowitz, Sinatra and others performed, and which featured this exceptional quality of performers as a gift for the local community, at highly subsidized prices unmatched anywhere. How can anyone explain the abscence of this in the histroy of the Church? In fact, it was the fact of his being away form the U.S. for such long periods throughtout the seventies, travelling worldwide to honor invitations from these leaders,and to assist humanitarian projects in order to have a plattform to preach the "Good News", that drove much of the internal history and develpoments of the church in the sevenites! In other words, his worlwide humanitarian projects and horors are by any standard of common sense an irreplaceable, integral part of Church history, yet it's not there. Why? Too positive? For even the least discerning mind, the religious bigotry just leaps off the page.

These things are well known, especially to people who attended the Church, who must marvel at the appearance of religious bigotry and flagrant ax-grinding, given the omission of these positive things Armstrong was involved with together coupled with the focus on dubious charges and allegations, which were laughed out of court.

As far as the allegations, where are the legitimate references to court documents? There are none in the article because there are none period. Also, the artilce claims he set a dates for prophetic event to happen. Let's provide a source: Can anyone quote a passage from the literature where such a thing was uttered? A little research will show there is no such statements. If hearsay concerning the booklet "1975 in Prophecy" has been used as a "source", I have to question the scholarship, and would suggest the editiors actually read the booklet, or visit the Wikipedia page on the booklet. Wikipedia and it's community deserve better quality than this.

This situation will be rectified, as it has been with the other articles on him, and those who think they might try to stand in the way be forewarned, you shall be as they. No matter how powerful and influential you are or think you are, your standing and prestige at Wikipedia will end. And remember this, If Wikipedia has to choose between upholding and or improving it's reputation and soothing egos, while facillitating self-serving agendas and ax-grinding, which option do you think the staff will side with?

A new order has come to the plains.

67.80.157.45 02:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Holy Days, again

I am not knowledgeable of the observance of Holy Days in the WCG but there is a WP article (Holy Days) which purports to list them that differs from the list in this article. Someone with more knowledge than me should reconcile these articles. Additionally, there is some minor variance in titles -- Feast of Trumpets (Christian holiday) vs. Feast of Tabernacles, Christian. The former seems (to me) to be more correct. If no one objects, I will make that change myself. Paul D. Anderson 18:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


67.80.157.45 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)from Jebbrady

Getting right which Holy Days they kept is pretty siginificant. Any comment on the posting above yours, which dwarfs issues of factual details? The posting has been up several days and still no response from any of the regular contributors. And let's go ahead and talk about it in terms of sources,court doucmentation, and unbiased testimony (as opposed to source material from WCG ministers who have a patently obvious self serving agenda) and citations--we want to be as scholarly and accuate as possible with this article.

No References to Raising the Ruins?

This book has been out since early November and there is still no discussion anywhere on this page from the regular editors on what it means for this article and how to incorporate this fabulous new source material into the article. The book is selling for less than $15, and is available through Amazon.com, as well as Borders, Ingram, and Barnes and Noble, so there is no reason for the editors of this page to not be eating it up as a source.

It purports to document in detail the transformation of the Worldwide Church of God under Joseph Tkach, basing its narrative solely on court documents--depositions, WCG internal memos and emails, testimonies, etc.. and all other documents gathered through discovery during the court trial between the Worldwide Church of God under Joseph Tkach Jr. and the Philadelphia Church of God (PCG). It is extensively footnoted.

Apparently the lawyers for the Worldwide under Tkach Jr. tried to keep these documents from being made public. They did this by intially offering to sell to the PCG the copyrights of Armstrong's books and booklets only on the condition that the PCG surrender these documents. Amazingly, Gerald Flurry, the head of the PCG, immediately informed them that that demand was a deal breaker, and to prepare for further litigation, even though Tkach and the WCG had already won their appeal on the Mystery of the Ages case with the subsequent PCG request to be heard by the Supreme Court being initially denied. Even more amazing, within hours the WCG relented and sold the copyrights anyway.

Are you aware of this book and what implication does this body of tremendous, fabulous source material have for this article?

I'm kind of surprised that this is not being discussed at all on this page. It should be discussed out in the open, and if it isn't, something is wrong. 67.80.157.45 00:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

I would refer you to your own comment - "a trained historian must automatically question the use of any primary source material in which the author was not only a mere particpant in the events in question, and whose objectivity is in serious question..." -

Article's Erroneous Reference to 1975 in Prophecy

Here is a passage from the Wikipedia article on 1975 in Prophesy, emphasis mine:

“This was not intended as a work of fiction, but as a warning to the reader of what was scheduled to happen yet without giving a definitive timeline (which can be seen by reading the booklet carefully). The timeline was uncertain and 1975 was never even mentioned in relation to Biblical prophecy, in the text, even though the title of the booklet was specific. All dates were in relation events or outcomes not specified by the Bible. The biblical prophecies were ambiguous as to their timing....

The editor then goes on to end the debate by quoting from the booklet itself: "The prophecy does NOT reveal exactly which ten nations will be included-but this resurrected Roman Empire will bind together some 250 to 300 millions of peoples (1975 in Prophecy, H.W. Armstrong)!"

Please compare with the passage featured in the WCG article, under the heading, "The Beginnings of Change":

"The broadcast of The World Tomorrow on Radio Luxembourg on January 7, 1953 prompted Herbert Armstrong to view his ministry in the context of two periods of nineteen years each. The first period covered the time from the start of the radio ministry until early 1953. The second period, then, would conclude sometime in late 1972. Armstrong and Ambassador College graduate Herman L. Hoeh first detailed this interpretation in a 1956 booklet, 1975 in Prophecy!. This interpretative vision of his ministry consumed Herbert Armstrong, who now repackaged his radio program as The World Tomorrow. It also apparently had an impact on many others; including Michael Dennis Rohan, who cited Armstrong's work when questioned on the attempted destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem in 1967."

The difference in Scholarly professionalism is stunning between the two passages I've provided here. The latter passage, from the WCG article has no citations, is factually inaccurate, misleading and sensationalist. The 1975 in Prophecy passage has a direct quote from the booklet, refuting and truly annihilating the argument that Armstrong set dates, yet some how that age old assertion holds sway in this heavily POV article. Have the editors here even read the book? Anyone? This not only reflects unseemly inconsistency in Wikipedia articles that touch on the same issue, but certainly appears--especially given the tone of the rest of the article--as a flagrant attempt to make Armstrong and the former devout members of the Church he was involved with to look like some kind of fanatical, prophetic-date-setting crazies, or worse, drawing insidious comparisons with Jim Jones and David Koresh.

This of course makes it look like Wikipedia is being used as a platform for religious bigotry. To others, it also makes it look like Wikipedia is being used as a medium for self-serving propaganda by former and current WCG officials who, according to a recent book citing court records exhaustively (Raising the Ruins) have hoarded over 1 billion in tithes and offerings of members who were forced out after having doctrinal changes they hated forced upon them.

This is an Encyclopedia.

(Concerning Raising the Ruins, there’s still no comments on this discussion page after six months about this treasure trove of fist rate source material--kind of amazing). It definitely is a sad commentary on the level of professional sincerity among the editors of this article, and it will be brought to the attention of Wikipedia Staff if need be—all the way to the top if necessary)

Please note that I'll be watching the article 1975 in Prophecy like a hawk to prevent any self-serving edits and vandalism.

A new order has come to the plains.


Jebbrady 23:49, 6 June 2007

Unprofessional Heading: Indication of Propagandistic use of This Article?

The heading "The Beginning of Changes", used for a section that describes events that took place in the church long before Armstrong died, features a very troubling and disturbing choice of wording (please skip down to my conclusions in the last paragraph if you don't have time to read the full exposition of this subject). The wording seems largely apropos of nothing in the passage, yet even if it weren't, so many other choices of words could have been used. Why does it matter?

Anyone who has taken advantage of examining the fabulous source material contained in Raising the Ruins will see that all of Armstrong's doctrines--including the core doctrines that made his beliefs unique--were formed early in his conversion. Research shows clearly that the true "beginning of changes"--that is, all the significant doctrinal changes--came after he died, and were foisted upon the membership in a gradual, deceptive, and underhanded fashion, as part of a clearly planned out agenda, to maintain high church income while planning from the beginning to make such unpopular changes that members would eventually be forced out (as thousands were) or leave voluntarily, thus abandoning 1 billion dollars worth of tithes and offerings left behind with the WCG leadership which--the evidence clearly shows--they hoarded to themselves (it is demonstrably shown, through court documents, that this money was NOT put back into the Work: the humanitarian projects were allowed to die out, vast swathes of the literature distribution was canceled despite the literature's popularity (soon they began charging for what they did offer--though highly edited from the versions Armstrong had written), and the message ceased to be preached at the same magnitude as under HWA (of course it wasn't the same message anymore, but it supports the point).

Some of the top leadership in the WCG certainly must feel some pressure to justify the changes in light of the betrayal of the members cherished beliefs, the betrayal of the work members were doing to share the message they loved with the world, and the disturbing financial gap between church income and church expenditures between 1986 and 1991.

The choice of wording undermines the efforts of everyone who is trying to make Wikipedia as professional in quality as possible. The choice of wording strongly appears to be an attempt to show that the doctrinal changes, which led to the hoarding of over one billion in tithes and offerings of members who were forced out due to the changes, were just part of a pattern of change that had always existed under Armstrong—that is, it was just "business as usual", no big deal--something to be expected that Armstrong had always done. That is destructively erroneous at best and deceitful at worst. Thus the heading, like so many other things associated with articles concerning Armstrong and the church he founded, strongly appears to be a tool of self-serving propaganda by defensive, self-justifying former and current WCG officials who, according to court documents cited in Raising the Ruins, bullied and robbed over one hundred thousand members of the Church, and who have now been exposed by the court case over Mystery of the Ages (through the book Raising the Ruins) in ways they never thought possible, apparently.

Jebbrady 00:43, 7 June 2007

Section Titled "Criticism" Oddly Located

A legitimate encyclopedia article on a religion does not begin with a section entitled "Criticisms". This article does however, immediately after the intro. Count this among many changes to come.