Talk:Armstrongism

message: Originally the term "Armstrongism" was created as a redirect to the Worldwide Church of God. Now that this church has rejected most of Armstrong's teachings, it makes sense to have a separate article. I created this as a stub and I hope others would expand on it. Please remember about NPOV and avoid promotion of a specific belief. RelHistBuff 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armstrongism 

message: I believe an effort has been made toward neutrality, but there still appears to be loaded language (mostly favoring Armstrongism but at times opposed to it) and as mentioned above, this stub does not engage this topic sufficiently to offset POV issues. I will watch this and where time permits I hope to include information that includes POV's from outside Armstrongism and Armstrong CG's. LiteratPJ 19:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV already appears compromised 

message: After reading the "Other non-mainstream teachings" section of this article, I have to wonder whether anyone is minding the store here.  I come to Wikipedia because I'm curious about a lot of things, including Christian subcultures I've never heard of.  When I find that a major section of an article contains juvenile wisecracks, hostile characterizations, and obvious personal biases, I end up concluding that the entire article may be unreliable and that I have therefore learned nothing.  With the recent Wikipedia scandal involving "essjay", the increasingly widespread mistrust of wikis in general caused by the emergence of intellectual atrocities such as Conservapedia and CreationWiki, and the glee with which Fox News reports that Middlebury College students will no longer be allowed to cite Wikipedia as a primary reference source, I am finding it harder and harder to convince friends and relatives that Wikipedia is the valuable resource I think (thought?) it is.  If open-source, open-access information resources like Wikipedia can be judged by reasonable people to be operating at the functional level of MMORPGs and online dating chatrooms, then perhaps it's time to consign Wikipedia (AND all its imitators and parodists) to Internet Archive's Wayback Machine and leave the encyclopedia business to Britannica et al., who still have the respect of most people over the age of 30.  Personally, I do what I can improve the product by fixing typos, bad grammar, and incorrect hotlinks whenever I have the time, but I'm not "bold" enough to just go in and delete a whole section like "Other non-mainstream teachings" even though it clearly begs for deletion.  Maybe I should be.  I hope that whoever is mainly responsible for this page (assuming there is such a person) will deal with the problem.  JRamlow 07:03, 8 March 2007
UTC)
I read your comments with interest and agree with you. Wikipeida is valuable but tragically for Wikipedia, human nature is what it is.  Most of the problems with this article and others relating to it have to do with:  1) flagrant religious discrimination or even an eerie outright bigotry directed toward H.W. Armstrong and the old WCG  2) the historic tendency of persecution by mainstream religious groups against those who criticize them or those that are less mainstream (read H.W. Armstrong), or who tether their beliefs more to the Bible as opposed to seminary traditions (H.W. Armstrong) 3) A secular suspicion of the Bible and those who adhere to it.
Actually, the absence of these biases is so rare that for some people, the absence strikes an eerie chord of POV in favor of the religious group, like when a winter morning in a urban area brings a heavy accumulation of snow, and with it the odd absence of any traffic noise--something just doesn't seem right, yet there's nothing wrong with the lack of noise. Take care my friend. 67.80.157.45 03:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: parallels?  really?  I don't know whether you are familiar with the teachings of Armstrong, but there are HUGE differences between his doctrines and the doctrines of the churches you mentioned.  Saying there are remarkable parallels between them is like saying there are remarkable parallels between Catholicism and Islam because they have both used force to propegate thier religion, they both believe in a God, they both keep a day of the week as holy and they both have Festivals about celebration and mourning!Red hothead (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other non-mainstream teachings

message: The point of Wikipedia is not to convince people one way or the other on any issue - it is to inform and teach in an objective way. In that vein, what is the current thought on citing basis for some of these more seemingly outlandish teachings of Armstrong? In other words - for things like a "Triple Tithe" which sounds very oppressive - is it responsible for editors to add where in the Bible he got such an idea from? -Elmerglu 14:24, 2007-03-21 (EDT)
:Elmerglu,
:Triple tithe was in fact biblically based and only existed in Israel and the Church to help support members in the nation and the church, respectively, in financial need. I wouldn't use the word "oppressive" to describe it: it was only done for each member in the third and sixth years of a repeating seven year cycle (counting from baptism), as in the Bible,and "third tithe years" became famous for the financial miracles and "deliverances" for those who faithfully turned in the tithe.
Specifically, the third tithe is described in Deuteronomy 14:28-29, unless I am mistaken.
71.241.98.140 07:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucylu,
In addition to what Elmerglu has said, the third tithe is really no different from what some people contribute towards charitable causes.  Even on a national level, in the UK we have the welfare system.  This system is not in place in many other countries; is it really oppressive to ask that members be willing to help other members in poorer countries/circumstances? User:lucylu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red hothead (talk • contribs) 19:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Citing Bible Scriptures 

message: Not sure I agree with that. "Soul sleep", Sabbatarianism, etc are features of other groups as well. That is a fact that cannot be denied. Armstrong may have had his own spin on some of these similarities, and presented himself as the source, but that does not mean they aren't analogous. 71.203.207.189 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't present himself as the source, his entire work was based on proving the Bible as the source for all doctrines, I think you may have missed the point there a bit :).  Many religions have some similarities with each other, this does not mean they copy eachother, especially within the different versions of Christianity, even though some groups rely more on the bible than others, they are bound to agree on some things.  Scroll up to see my comment on this subject.  Red hothead (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  JW's, SDA's... 

message: Please note, posted for everyone's review below, the strict standards of scholarship and NPOV integrity of Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons (yes I realize H.W. Armstrong is dead).
:"This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard."
Of course you can use your imagination to see if this policy might in practice, in this case, extend to H.W. Armstrong, considering there is an offshoot group of the WCG that has their college named after him, and that owns the copyrights to all his major books and booklets. That group seems to be increasing in profile--I think their television program is ranked third or fourth in ratings among U.S. religious broadcasts, and recently they've been advertising their book on the legacy of Armstrong (called Raising the Ruins) during Fox's O'Reilly factor on a nightly basis. Do you really think Wikipedia is going to take any chances with libel if they have to intervene? This group has already gone to court once to "revive (read "protect") the legacy of Herbert W. Armstrong." 
Editors ought to think twice before they present any unsubstantiated charges against the man in any article or discussion page here.
208.253.158.36 17:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: H.W. Armstrong & Wikipedia's policy on biogrpahies of living persons

message: A rent post dismissed the idea that the WCG leadership hoarded 1 billion dollars in tithes and offerings in the five year period after Herbert Armstrong died was merely "an old rumor". 
We certainly have an amazing body of first rate source material available to the public now concerning that issue.  Please make note of the recently published book Raising the Ruins by Stephen Flurry.  This book is annotated to the gills with references to source material gained in the recent court case versus the current leadership of the Worldwide Church of God (WCG), where a mountain of internal WCG emails, memo’s, published material, and financial statements had to be turned over to the PCG lawyers as part of the discovery process (please read that statement again). Those documents do not lie, though people can be biased and people can lie. Read my postings on the book on other pages connected to Armstrong and the WCG. The fact that no one who edits these articles has made a single comment on or response to my numerous postings on the tremendous new source material, expounded on in Raising the Ruins through hundreds of footnotes, is all the evidence one really needs of a POV problem in the area of religious discrimination, though I have provided much more evidence on this page.
To sum up for you what was revealed in the court case through these documents obtained through discovery, the WCG leadership was irrefutably shown to have simultaneously planned to completely change the doctrines of the church (and its overall involvement in humanitarian projects and free distribution of literature) and at the same time were demonstrably shown in the court case to have deliberately and systematically concealed from the members their plans to make these sweeping changes--and then lied--also systematically--about the changes as they began to happen so that people thought nothing much was wrong and continued to send in their tithes and offerings which the WCG leadership was happy to collect--all this between 1986 and 1991. After that, the changes accelerrated to the point where the leadership no longer could conceal them (or cared to anymore), so members became disraught and started to leave the WCG in droves. The WCG leadership was of course left behind with the money, and no one knows where it went--there is nothing to show for it as is pointed out in detail in the book--they ceased the humanitarian projects and stopped publishing and distributing the literature for free, fired employees, and in fact even did a fire sale of the church's assets, including selling off Ambassador Auditorium for several million dollars.
You’ll notice a strange lack of interest in that book as source material, despite the abundance of primary source documents it cites—normally a researches dream. Go to the discussing pages of the Joseph Tkach Senior article, as well as scanning this discussion page, ad you find several attempts on my part to stir up some discussion on that book, which only came out last November.  Yet not a single reply from any of the editors who have "owned" these articles. Not one. No references or discussion anywhere. It's astounding. Aren’t you interested in obtaining and using such fabulous source material?  Again, it’s loaded with references to internal documents and finances that had to be exposed during the court case, and the WCG has certainly not sued them for slander or defamation of character for writng the book—read the book yourself, examiniong the annotations and court documents regadring the what was turned over by the WCG through discovery and you’ll see why: they’d get creamed. 
The WCG actually tried to keep those documents out of the public eye through negotiation: According to sources involved in the case (which was well publicized, including a front page write up in the Wall Street Journal), during the copyright settlement phase with the PCG, the WCG leadership at first insisted that as part of the deal, the PCG return to the WCG all the internal memos, financial statements and internal emails gathered in discovery from the WCG, and the PCG refused, saying that would be a deal breaker (they obviously wanted to write a book about what the WCG had done). The WCG  agreed to sell the copyrights of Armstrong's writings to the PCG the next day with no strings attached, for three million dollars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.162.235 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 19 July 2007
:: speaking as someone who is aware of the accounts of WWCOG, they DID squirrel away alot of money in the years after his death, and have since cancelled dissability pensions, renaged on discressionary pensions and, as a result, have broken several families I am personally aquainted with by writing harrassing letters and making similar phone-calls.  At the same time as doing all this under the excuse of financial difficulties (which they were indeed facing) they were increasing high ranking ministers salaries.Red hothead (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-Armstrong WCG Leadership Hoarding Tithes Merely a Rumor?

message: There are two problems with the article.  First, the CoGers do not like the term Armstrongism.  It seems biased to call a group by a name they do not like.  Secondly, there is confusion between what was believed in the days of Herbert Armstrong and what is generally believed today.  This article should clearly describe what is believed today.  But first let me say that the unique characteristics of the CoG's are by no means their primary tenets.  The most important beliefs of the CoG’s are common with other denominations:  Jesus is our savior, he is the Son of God, he died for our sins, etc.  Rather, it is a certain set of what I would call mid-level beliefs that make CoG’s unique.  CoG’s of today generally believe:
1. Weekly worship should be on Saturday, not on Sunday, because Saturday is the sabbath.
2. The Old Testament Jewish dietary laws are still obligatory.  This means no consumption of pork, shellfish, etc.
3. Christmas and Easter are of pagan origin, and therefore they should not be celebrated.  They are not Biblical.
4. God is a family.  We become God when we die, in the sense that we become part of that family (See the UCG website for more details.)
5. The seven Jewish holidays of the Old Testament should still be celebrated by Christians.
6. The primary holiday of the seven is the Feast of Tabernacles in the fall, during which all should gather together, typically at a resort-type location.
7. Christians must give two tithes to God.  The first should be donated to the church.  The second should be used to attend the Feast of Tabernacles.
8. There are two resurrections.  Those who have believed correctly are included in the first.  Nearly everyone who has ever lived is given a chance at heaven in the second.  Almost no one goes to hell; only those who reject the truth, even after being shown it in the second resurrection.  There is a 1000 year millennium between the two resurrections.
9. When we die, we don’t immediately go to heaven.  We are asleep until the resurrection.
10. The Trinity doctrine is incorrect.  The Holy Spirit is not a being, but rather a "force", like electricity.
11.  The Kingdom of God (Heaven) will be located here on Earth, after the millenium.
Ideally, I think the Wikipedia article should be rewritten along these lines.  --Westwind273 (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Focus 

message: The article should maybe explain armstrongist views on the papacy and show why some affiliated publications will sometimes focus heavily on the roman episcopacy in order to back their millenialist views. (cf ) ADM (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Papacy

message: (See Monty Python and the Works of Josephus...)
Our The World Tomorrow (radio and television) articloe mentions "Church of God, Worldwide Ministries". Is this the same thing as the "Church of God, a Worldwide Association" mentioned in this article? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judean People's Front, Judean Popular People's Front, or People's Front of Judea? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Armstrongism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070830123636/http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904335/k.9964/Armstrongism.htm to http://www.4truth.net/site/c.hiKXLbPNLrF/b.2904335/k.9964/Armstrongism.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wcg.org/lit/prophecy/anglo/howanglo.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I think this clumsy wording should be "him and his" as the subject is "his teachings". I'm not editing this page any further (due to constant reverts) so others are welcome to change the wording.Volunteer1234 (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  His teachings are professed by he and his followers 

message: "The ministry did not pay tithes; they received tithes as Levites, and lived on a higher income than most members."  Is this a teaching that the ministry should live on higher income than most members, or an observation?  I notice that nothing in this whole section "other non-mainstream teachings" is referenced. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "higher income" 

message: If I remember correctly, HWA taught non-miscegenation (no mixing of 'races' in marriage).  --134.153.14.13 (talk) 18:42, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  no mixing