Talk:Worldwide Church of God/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other Comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: They appear on this list - WCG splits - which is on the WCG website. - Rlvaughn 16:22, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Addition of new material 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Merged

message: 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)
thread_title:  Change of focus 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverted 28 July 2005 edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverted major cropping of article 

message: 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)
thread_title: Universal translated incorrectly

message: 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)
thread_title: POV check

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
thread_title: Neutrality and quality sources

message: 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)
thread_title:  Doctrines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POV REDUX 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Receivership versus Jim Jones 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bigoted Sensationalism: Prove Assertions or They'll Be Deleted

message: 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. 
::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)
thread_title: Tabloid Approach and Religious Discrimination

message: 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)
thread_title: List of Holy Days

message: 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)
replies: text: ...and it's already been reverted. Dr d12 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 40 sermons later...

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Is there a reason we don't put them in chronological order? 71.228.189.127 03:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  List of holy days grossly incorrect? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Documentation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Appearance of Religious Bigotry, and Lack of Legitimate Scholarship

message: 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)
thread_title:  Holy Days, again 

message: 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)
thread_title: No References to ''Raising the Ruins''?

message: no mention of bobby fischer?
quite the notable figure
See  - Karpouzi (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fischer? 

message: On 2 August I moved the following comments here that Jeb had left on my Talk page, because I prefer to keep discussion centralized at the article being discussed. EdJohnston 02:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That source would be far from neutral.  Stephen Flurry is related to Gerald Flurry, founder of the Philadelphia Church of God, a post WCG-denomination.  The PCG is obviously antagonistic towards the current WCG due to their fundamentally different view of Herbert Armstrong. 68.13.236.125 05:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by [[User:Jebbrady]] about this article 

message: I question the presence of this section. Anything that is significant should be covered in the text of the article. Having a separate "timeline" is redundant, at best, and detracts from the quality of the article. It would never make Featured status with it present. 24.6.65.83 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle with removing the timeline. As you are implying, facts that are important in the timeline as written here could be covered in the text part of the article. EdJohnston 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And here I thought I was fairly explicit. :) Just so you know, I'm also going to try to deal with the Criticism section that several other editors have said is oddly placed. 24.6.65.83 00:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: The article has a declarative statement that he set a date for Christ's return in 1972, without a citation to verify. This is actually in dispute from numerous sources, including the Church that hold the copyrights to his books. There are secondary sources that said he did without citing any specific occurence of when and where he actually said it. Other sources say he simply didn't. There is no record that I know of Armstrong himself in  his literature or in a sermon setting dates. Note that 1975 in prophecy has no mention of it--there is a link to it in the Armstrong article, and the Wikipedia article on that booklet echoes that. Without a citation, it should be removed. What I do know is that speculation about 1972 arose from the upper ministry: the ministry, while Armstrong visited heads of state, began to take the church in other directions, and moved away from preaching everything Armstrong wanted, and avoiding thing he did not want. It was that same ministry that started the speculation about 1972, and perpetuated it. A little common sense just makes it seem doubtful, considering the lack of proof that he himself set dates: The Bible sets no dates, and the Bible was the basis of Armstrongism; and it would have been absurd for him set 1972 as a date considering the European Union had not formed as a federal superstate yet, a major prerequisite in prophecy-nor had eastern Europe come close to spinning out of the Soviet orbit, which Armstrong expected to occur before a return, forming the "Eastern leg" of Daniels statue. 
If a secondary source should refer to an specific instance where he set a date, otherwise it would be regurgitating hearsay. It would have to be 1) a sermon 2) a booklet or book 3)a co-worker letter 4)the Plain Truth or the Good News etc.. or 5) someone in the room a room or meeting where he declared it, with no one else close to Armstrong contradicting that source's account. 
If a secondary source can make such a reference it's fine. Otherwise the statement doesn't belong. 
03:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a reliable source can be found that reports that date (1972), it can be in there. If a reliable source can be found that say he didn't, or gives a different date, that can go in there also. The article should accurately reflect what those sources say. If they can provide a date and location he said it, fine. If not, that doesn't make them less reliable. "A little common sense" without citation = Original Research. 24.6.65.83 07:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article 1975_in_Prophecy! states that 1972 was the date.68.13.238.221 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Armstrong setting dates for Christ's return?

message: The presence of an overview is redundant to the purpose of a WP:LEAD section. I propose to eliminate the overview, moving a few bits up to the lead and deleting the rest. The revised lead would look something like this;
:The Worldwide Church of God (WCG), formerly the Radio Church of God, is a Christian church based in Glendora, California, USA. Founded in 1933 by Herbert Armstrong as a radio ministry, the WCG under Armstrong had a significant, and often controversial, influence on 20th century religious broadcasting and publishing in the United States and Europe, especially in the field of interpreting biblical end-time (eschatalogical) prophecies. However, within a few years after Armstrong's death in 1986, the succeeding church administration, led by Joseph W. Tkach, Sr. from 1986 to 1995 and then his son, Joseph Tkach, Jr. from 1995 to the present, examined and changed the doctrines and teachings of which the WCG held fundamental differences with more mainstream Christianity. Many members and ministers left the WCG to form churches that conformed to most, if not all, of the church's former doctrines. The WCG claims 64,000 members in 860 congregations in about 90 countries as of June 2007. The WCG is a member of the National Association of Evangelicals.
-- 24.6.65.83 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of strengthening the lead, and dropping the overview, so I support this plan. EdJohnston 19:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 24.6.65.83 20:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede and overview 

message: I am aware of a book that came out in November called Raising the Ruins by Stephen Flurry. 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, and actual internal WCG documents and memos are quoted throughout, without spin or interpretation. 
Apparently the lawyers for the Worldwide under Tkach Jr. tried to keep these documents from being made public.  They did this by initially 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.
Jebbrady 17:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 11. You do realize that this is the same anon editor you've been accusing me of colluding with on Herbert W. Armstrong, right?--SarekOfVulcan 19:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: From Jebbrady to User:24.6.65.83

message: By any standard this is wonderful new source material for the post Armstrong years.  It's the best of everything: the fact that internal documents are presented by a third party, and are cited by newspapers in book reviews now, makes it allowable for Wikipedia, yet being of a third party in no way filters or diminishes the impact or the snapshot of events the internal memos and emails make in forming a picture of trends behind the  scenes in the transformation, in crystal clear, irrefutable detail. 
It does deal with some sensitive issues, especially that about 1 billion dollars in tithes and offerings was collected from members loyal to Armstrong from 1986-1991, during which time the WCG leadership was systematically hiding the doctrinal changes and their plans for a massive transformation into evangelicalism. Of course the changes were hid because, as event would bare out--the members would never turn their tithes over to a leadership rejecting the teachings they had loved and supported. Members who sniffed the changed were ruthlessly forced out after complaining, and droves predictably left when the changes could no longer be hidden. The WCG leadership was left holding the money, and meanwhile cut back on expenses like distributing the literature for free, humanitarian projects etc...and began selling off assets as member left. Of course a lot of families were torn apart by the controversy in the changes but that's another story. 
My opinion is that we need to face reality and recognize that the post-Armstrong years described in this article in no way reflects the reality of what happened, and it has to be dealt with. I've noticed that some editors have either expressed dismay at this book getting mentioned frequently, or have tried to completely ignore it--my postings on it on this page have failed to draw a single expression of interest in terms of using it. This of course leads to the appearance of a possible conflict of interest. I guess so far no one has had the time or recourses to really investigate that and file a complaint. Well, as far as this book not being used to date, it looks like a new order has come to the plains.
Jebbrady 23:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where the Flurry info would be used. If we had a separate article, something like 'Breakup of the WWCOG,' it would clearly be relevant there. The current article doesn't dig much into the reasons for the doctrinal split after Armstrong's death.  The only section of the article that is still separately tagged as needing work is 'Worldwide organizational structure.'  Flurry probably wouldn't help much on that. EdJohnston 02:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The current article doesn't dig much into the reasons for the doctrinal split after Armstrong's death." And it shouldn't because....???? Jebbrady 04:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments above - they all apply here. 24.6.65.83 16:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Raising the Ruins: Description and import for this article

message: I'm not unbiased, so I won't edit the Hierarchy section too much, but frankly, it assumes the former form of governance, not the current. Hopquick 11:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hierarchy Incorrect 

message: I changed the terminology to "related denominations".  IMO, "Remnant Churches" implies a POV that positively or negatively judges the theological veracity of either the WCG or the "remnants".  I don't think that is our intent.  Others have used the term "splinter" groups.  I think this also has a bias.  So I changed it to "related denominations".  Change it if you feel like you have a better solution. Hopquick 14:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remnant Churches