Talk:Armstrongism

Armstrongism

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)

POV already appears compromised

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)

Statement Removed

This statement was removed by me and will remain so: "Some of the doctrines can be found in other religion groups including, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and Baptists while others are attributed to Armstrong."

To anyone who comes upon this article who is familiar with H.W. Armstrong's positions on doctrine and what he based them on, the statement quickly undermines the credibility of the artcle, and of course hurts wikipedia.

He focussed entirely on publically presenting scriptures he believed supported certain doctrines, and would then would then present an argument as to why other scriptures cited by his critics were mistakenly applied or mistranslated etc etc. It was all based on his study and view of the Bible.

Secondly, he had long taught that all christian sects were daughter churches of a "great false church".

For anyone to continue to assert that he borrowed his doctrines from those churches, in the face of the facts I just presented which anyone can easily verify, would be tantamount to religious bigotry, something that of course has no place in Wikipedia.

67.80.157.45 01:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Jebbrady

Actually I think you dislike it because it undermines the credibility of Herbert Armstrong, which of course hurts wikipedia. Your claim of "It was all based on his study and view of the Bible" is an unwarranted accolade that does not jibe with his proven plagiarism of others' works and studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.207.189 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 3 June 2007

Your first sentence doesn't make any sense, and so I have no idea what you're trying to say there. I'll comment on the other sentence: If you can cut and paste comparative passages from materials he supposedly plagiarized and show it side by side with his writings, than do so. And that means the actual passages in question, compared side by side, not slanderous unsubstantiated accusations. Just reading the articles and discussion pages concerning Armstrong articles at Wikipedia, it's patently obvious that--though the man had many friends among world leaders and was greatly admired--he has had vicious enemies here in America--which doesn't surpirse me, given his openly stated but sincere beliefs, and his banishing of problematic members from the church. The viciousness includes the vehement desire to sully his reputation in any way possible, bringing into these articles every unsubstantiated bit of innuendo and hearsay imaginable--much of it old nonsense I specifically know to have been proven false years ago. Editors seems bent to reach and claw for as many negative sounding details they can possibly cram into his articles, usually apropos of nothing in the context--just digs in passing clearly meant to make him look like a hypocritial religious leader like the kind we've seen before in other leaders all too often. It's injurious to the reputation of Wikipedia.

Armstrong had many venomous critics and antagonists, but they were never anything more than 1) secularist religious bigots who hate the Bible and those who adhere to it--and see that as a political threat 2) WCG leaders who wanted to change doctrines secretly while collecting tithes, then make open changes to drive everyone out and keep the tithes (See the court documents from WCG v. PCG); 3) disgruntled former members who were kicked out for character issues, or 4) Some Protestants and Catholics who hated his views about religion, and had a natural sense of rivalry toward his beliefs.

Have you ever heard of recent scandals in plagiarism regarding well known historians? They were exposed in detail and made to pay for it publicly. It became well known. The passages in question were compared line by line publicly on venues like C-SPANN. Neither personage was as famous or controversial as Armstrong. I'm sure many people have tried to check out the charges of plagiarism, and if anyone took those charges of plagiarism seriously, then perhaps Armstrong's legacy would be in ruins like those historians. Yet a church recently battled for 6 years in court a the cost of 3 million dollars (and risking much more in damages for copyright infringement) in order to keep his literature in print and distribute it for free. Armstrong has a college named after him and is still respected by the world leaders who knew him, and by millions of the readers of his literature even today. He was involved in humanitarian projects and arts programs the world over to the point that he received breathtaking honors from heads of state, and won awards from dignitaries that other leaders drooled over; and he became close with many of these leaders--see the Armstrong article.

Apparently you are the only one take those charges of plagiarism at face value. I'll await your proof of those charges. I won't hold my breath. Reply from 02:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbbrady

I don't think you've accomplished anything by that highly opinionated rant except prove my point. Your desire to glorify Armstrong, rather than examine him, is more than transparent. His copying from J.H. Allen's "Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright" is oft-cited - have you obtained this book and examined it? Another example is his booklet "Which Day is the Christian Sabbath?". Have you obtained a copy of the SDA booklet by this name, which predates HWAs by twenty years? Paraphrasing your own words, I'm sure you've tried to check out the charges of plagiarism... (yes, much sarcasm). And there are other examples, but again, paraphrasing your own words, those who won't do the research themselves before posting articles about it are 1) sectist religious fanatics who adore Herbert Armstrong and everything he said -and see actual research as a political threat 2) disgruntled former members who were kicked out for character issues and are now hanging around splinter groups similar to what they couldn't keep up with back then or 3) "Some of the ROTTEN, PUTRID, spiritual WASTE that has been PLUGGED UP INSIDE OF THE SPIRITUAL BODY OF CHRIST'S WIFE..." - HWA, March 2, 1967 letter. revka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.211.107 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 July 2007

Thank you for advancing everyone's understanding of your reasoning process. I encourage you to continue in that vein.

If you please would, read my comments again--I realize you're angry, but you didn't address any of the points I made, so we don't have much of a dialog yet it appears.

I would say that you make some strong accusations toward me in regards to my views and attitudes toward Herbert Armstrong. As for your characterization of me wanting to glorify Armstrong rather than examine him, I challenge you to point to a single instance where I have glorified him in any way. My reply is that I simply reject the idea that the absence of malice or hostility toward the man is an inferior standpoint to examine him versus the typical ax-grinding, religiously bigoted perspective all too common in articles related to him and the emotional perspective that you bring--evidenced by the language you use and the accusations toward me. I assure you that my attitude toward the man as I've been reading and reviewing his writings and those of his critics, the wikipedia articles, Stanley Rader's book, and the recently published "Raising the Ruins" has at all times been sober, realistic, and objective; while no historian truly understands any historical figure as well as they would like, my views on this page and edits were arrived at through lucidity and soundness of mind and clearness of thought--through cold reason and not emotion.

Lastly, and most importantly, you've evidently made some major headway in terms of investing time in reading these materials he allegedly plagiarized from. I invited you to cite examples. Why haven't you?

Reply from 208.253.158.36 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Lucidity, eh? Let's see..

" It was all based on his study and view of the Bible." (Only Armstrong's contention - not the contention of a majority of examiners)

"though the man had many friends among world leaders and was greatly admired (Unqualified accolade - Even a Ku Klux Klan's Grand Dragon can be "greatly admired" if we speak of his own membership --he has had vicious enemies here in America--which doesn't surpirse me, given his openly stated but sincere beliefs (Unqualified accolade again, sincerity is not proven) and his banishing of problematic members from the church. (Assumption of "problematic" as negative.)"

"Armstrong had many venomous critics and antagonists, but they were never anything more than 1) secularist religious bigots who hate the Bible and those who adhere to it--and see that as a political threat 2) WCG leaders who wanted to change doctrines secretly while collecting tithes, then make open changes to drive everyone out and keep the tithes (See the court documents from WCG v. PCG); 3) disgruntled former members who were kicked out for character issues, or 4) Some Protestants and Catholics who hated his views about religion, and had a natural sense of rivalry toward his beliefs." (False characterization and also 'religious bigotry'. Opening sentence infers Armstrong's superiority to any critic regardless of point made. #1 is little more than a slur to those who would "dare" question Armstrong's authority. #2 is repetition of old church rumor. #3 is simply slanderous characterization based on no qualified source (and an old Armstrong tactic, let's blame it on 'dissidents'!). #4 follows pattern of number one, since of course assuming Armstrong's worldview automatically assumes that the "Christians of this world" must be driven by hatred (which was, of course, the devil's work anyhow.)

You said: "I'm sure many people have tried to check out the charges of plagiarism, and if anyone took those charges of plagiarism seriously, then perhaps Armstrong's legacy would be in ruins like those historians." (Unqualified assumption yet again. Does not take into account the quagmire of plagiarizing religious sources versus 1 Corinthians 6.)

You said: "I invited you to cite examples. Why haven't you?" Because if you can't prove or disprove it yourself, you've no place in charging or defending plagiarism. - revka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.211.107 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 July 2007

(Please note these replies are in bold to stand out against the previous post, to avoid confusion for other readers)

You brought the charge of plagiarism, not me or anyone else. What that means is there is nothing for me or anyone else but you to prove or disprove--nothing for me to examine or check out until you bring it forth and present it to everyone. You made the outlandish charge and you have to back it up--and you've yet to do that, which is one reason why it's fair to call the charge "outlandish" not to mention the fact that your charge didn't make it into articles on him even when his most vicious critics were the preeminent editors.

Be advised that whatever you try to produce must have page number references for both authors, as well as be from a book version that is publicly, readily available, and you must make known the information on which published addition you are citing from. Whatever you present will be vigorously checked up on for accuracy and authenticity--you need not expect to get away with any fraudulent charges. If you try to present anything that fails to meet all three of those criteria, it will be deleted and I will immediately see about getting you blocked. Please read the new posting below.

Sounds like a lot of work--sure you have the time?

Reply from 208.253.158.36 17:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Interesting exchange. Seems to me that someone here has an axe to grind. Anyway, to the person who made the charges of plagiarism, I too, would like to see side by side examples of this plagiarism. I've heard remarks like this for years, usually from people who were ex-Worldwiders, otherwise disgruntled individuals,or people just repeating what they've heard, but none of them ever offered any proof either. Since you made the charges the onus is on you to present the evidence in the way that Jebbrady suggested. Maybe by presenting the evidence here and having wikipedia administrators review it for accuracy, etc., it might put an end to this discussion. I would definitely like to see the proof. After all in the United States of America a man is still (unless the Constitution has been changed) innocent until proven guilty, and making any charges like that against anyone without proof could be considered slanderous.72.79.38.223 21:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm still in the middle of putting together a web source that'll exhaustively demonstrate the two (partially because I'm similarly dissatisfied with the sources on the topic), I should point out that this is not a court case. J.H. Allen is not suing for his rights beyond the grave. Jebbrady didn't like the assertion because it demeans a man he greatly admires, not because he knows it to be not true. There is no difference between that and "repeating what they heard" that I can see.

Again, you can find some preliminary work on the topic available via web search. Just for a few examples that are easy to find - [1] (see under headline Plagiarism, Flurry and Fraulein Kraus), [2] (headline, Armstrong a Plagiarist: A tiny fraction of excerpts). The booklet "Has Time Been Lost?" is covered at [3] At www.cogwriter.com, which is a more sympathetic source to Armstrong, the writer shifts the wording from "plagiarized" to "paraphrased" and offers the apology "since he, along with his wife, Loma, was the entire editorial and publish staff for a while, it is understandable that they could have become careless in this regard." Does an ethical writer ever allow himself that kind of carelessness?

In the meantime, Allen's book is available on Amazon.com if anyone wants to read it themselves - which I still contend you cannot shirk from if you want to deny the charge - denial is quite different from saying "is it true or not true?". - jere71.203.211.107 03:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"This is not a courtcase" you are quite correct, yet it is you who argue against the objectivity of the article and it is you who desires to "examine" H.W.Armstrong. So, in order to be objective we must examine the facts in an objective, court-like manner. I too would like to see you post up here some of your evidence for plagerism, not merely linking websites which are not respected for their scholarly content or asking people to buy a book on Amazon. You brought the charges, I for one am a reasonable person and would like to see your proof for myself before even contemplating accepting your statement that anything he wrote was plagerised.Red hothead (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Other non-mainstream teachings

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)From Jebbrady

(new entry) Regardless of the claims of plagiarism, I think everyone will agree that there are, hmmm, "parallels" between the belief system outlined in this article, and other branches like the 7thDA or JWs. That the article fails to mention this does every reader a disservice. I'm going to add the comment, but leave out the "reason". Maury (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

On Citing Bible Scriptures

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)

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)

JW's, SDA's...

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)revka

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)

H.W. Armstrong & Wikipedia's policy on biogrpahies of living persons

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)Jebbrady

Post-Armstrong WCG Leadership Hoarding Tithes Merely a Rumor?

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)

"Armstrongism" coined by whom?

In order to validate the term, it seems that the person who coined it must be identified, and the reason for coining thereof identified as well. 71.241.98.140 07:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think I'll try to find some information on this and post it here. You guys who run the site can decide whether or not you want to use it. It would be interesting to find out who coined the term.72.79.38.223 22:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the only reason this article exists is because after his death there was a splintering into new groups, and that putting this material in the WCoG article would, I don't know, "do something". I debate whether or not the WCoG article doesn't cover this in enough depth already.

Given that the doctrine appears to be similar to other Millerite offshoots, it would seem that a short section on the differences would suffice. For instance, most of the Millerite offshoots reject the doctrine of the trinity and that heaven awaits the faithful (you will "sleep" until the second coming), they widely believe that there will be a 1,000 year period of peace after the second coming, that the Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday and that the soul is conditionally immortal and . These all appear to be here as well, at least as far as I can tell from the article. On the other hand, Armstrong's position on the godhead and the Kingdom of Christ is certainly different than what you would see in a JW work.

Given that, it seems to me a few carefully chosen paragraphs in the WCoG article would suffice to give an overview of the content here, and introduce the term in that context. I debate the need for a separate article. Maury (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Focus

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)

Papacy

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 [4]) ADM (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Judean People's Front, Judean Popular People's Front, or People's Front of Judea?

(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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:04, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

His teachings are professed by he and his followers

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)

"higher income"

"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)

no mixing

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)