Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong/Archive 3

message: Continuing the thought from above citing Wikipeidia's WP:V policy, emphasis mine:
:"Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." 
One editor has directly insinuated through a Time magazine obituary and her interpretation of a co-worker letter coinciding with his wife's death that Armstrong was financially manipulating WCG membership, including "many of whom were poor". We can agree that this is an "exceptional" claim. A Time magazine obituary of a couple dozen words, thrown in amongst many obituaries (as this was) with little or no editorial oversite is an "exceptional source".
Third Party Experts
If any editors might be tempted to quote a third party "cult expert" off the street to support the financial manipulation view angle (suggesting charlatanism), there is going to be a major debate, and those who take up that side in it are going to get creamed. Here's why...
There are five major reasons--five major points to make here. First, consider that tithing is biblical, and Armstrong espoused no doctrines he did not support thoroughly and honestly from the Bible--though religious leaders (whom he indirectly but openly criticized) have of course contested his Bible views. So tithing, as an Old and New Testament institution, was consistent with his Bible-centered theology. And of course members read the literature before being allowed to join, and were free to except this Bible based system or not join. As far as offerings, the Holy Days require offerings by biblical statute--no amount of money is specified, and these Holy Days were intrinsic to Armstrong's beliefs about the gospel as they are "a shadow of the gospel"--a picture of God's plan--according to Armstrong's Bible Correspondence Course (Armstrong saying that the Holy days shadow the gospel may at first sound incongruous and suspicious to those predisposed toward suspicion, but it is a belief he thoroughly expounded upon, and one held also by first century Christians in Palestine, as echoed by one ancient historian Armstrong cited [I'll track that citation down]). His gospel centered on obedience to God being an absolute must, and so the principle of tithes and offerings were completely consistent with his view on Christian religion--the gospel.
Second, the tithes were used to give the literature for free, without follow up solicitation. The church had no income outside of tithes and offerings because it deliberately did not silicate such--famously--and did not market products--nor does the offshoot that owns his copyrights. You won't find a single instance where Armstrong did silicate from the general public. Armstrong, conversely  did encourage members to give as they were able--for the well-off to share what they had accumulated as they prospered through putting into practice principles that parallel the famous Puritan work ethic and "Yankee ingenuity " of New England. The principle was "give"; first to God in faith, then God would give back more. Meanwhile, Armstrong  appears to have sacrificed and worked hard to get the message out through a lot of very lean years personally during the 1930's, 40's and 50's, when the church was small. He partially described his long time poverty as being a special case--as an effort by God to help him unlearn his pre-conversion priorities on "worldly success" and wealth.
Third, Armstrong openly and consistently rejected the idea of evangelizing crusades or philosophies to convert the masses so popular in Christian churches. This cost the Church millions obviously.  Watering down the rules and doctrines would have brought in still further millions in my view. He rejected evangelizing crusades vigorously and passionately--both in word and, in my estimation as the evidence indicates, in deed--and in fact the concept was central to the gospel message he brought: that God was going to save all who ever lived at a later time still in the future--that man's current civilization has been allowed bay God almost as an "aversion therapy" for a mankind that doesn't yet really know God. Thus this approach aruably cost the church many millions of dollars as it revolved around obedience rather than getting saved through faith alone, and included no evangelizing efforts in any traditional sense.
Lastly,consider the millions of dollars in tithes and offerings the Church abstained from collecting through the famous and unique non-open door policy for church membership, which Armstrong enforced throughout the almost 30 years of personal poverty when the church was tiny (from 1933 to the early sixties). The many thousands of people who called the church to express their desire to attend it can testify that they were told about this policy, and that a minister would eventually contact them to see if they read and understood the literature thoroughly. Many people would become offended and never come back--perhaps thousands. Armstrong did his utmost to make sure the ministry did not jump the gun with inviting people during this process. Many were rejected because they didn't agree with doctrine and preferred their own. The non-open door policy teaching was based on a many scriptures referred to almost ubiquitously in Armstrong's literature--especially John 6:44--where Jesus was quoted by John saying "no man can come to me except the Father draw him." This obviously was the opposite of trying to gain members to enlarge the financial coffers. Further, all who attended, rich or poor, did it voluntarily and almost had to plow their way in, as indicated. Lastly, people of wealth--architects, businessmen, and other professionals were routinely given the boot for "causing divisions" or for not adhering to the moral teachings and standards of the Church, thus costing the church, in each case, thousands of dollars per year in the lost tithes and offerings referred to by lisasmall. Of course a cursory study of the current Wikipedia article could have revealed to all that this money was spent on sending out tens of millions of copies of the churches literature free of charge (5 million copies of  The United States ans Britain in Prophecy alone), as well as on major humanitarian projects around the world that garnered the attention of more than a few heads of state (combating illiteracy etc)to name a just few expenses--see the article.'''
(the following was added 03:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Collecting Tithes and the Charlatan angle

message: There has been some very well reasoned good faith dialog amongst editors and administrators lately, but absent is any dialog with the editor who brought in the third parties and Administrators. Of course I've found this editor's additions and justifications to be problematic and taken a lot of time to explain why I think that, so I just want to take another crack at getting that editor to share their views on some of the points I've tried to make--to see if I can receive any direct feedback on specific points, a dialog which has failed to materialize.
I do realize that I played some hardball at times when it comes to lively debate. But this is not about personalities and need not be seen that way. My intent was to deter futile, time consuming wrangling in the future--in other words, I want to cut to the chase and inspire those who tend to approach Armstrong with suspicion of his sincerity to bring the best they have so we don't waste more time. 
I honestly think I've made some excellent points--I hope the lack of dialog isn't ducking. We should hash out the issues. This posting is meant to establish dialog with the editor in question--to nudge them a little to comment directly on some of my points and rebuttals. I've had no success thus far but the person said they were hanging back for now.
I haven't been able to get a constructive exchange concerning my proposal for a section called "Controversy" in the article. I think my postings on Armstrong's allegedly abusing the members financially through his wife's death and the tithing system should easily bring some consensus as to the right way of approaching the issue of tithes and offerings. 
To kick off some dialog,let's focus on the only hotly contested issue on this page right now--the only issue of contention I've had with the editor in question: the Time magazine obituary and the way it was set up.
Again this should not be  about personalities, so let's get this dialog going the way it should.
Jebbrady 06:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dialog Needed with Editor