HWA "Plagiarized" or "Copied" - Which?

Did HWA plagiarize J. H. Allen and stole his British-Israelism doctrine for himself? How have those who insist otherwise respond to this grave assertion? Did HWA claim to have gotten the doctrine from God alone though his word?

From HWA's sermon on May 16, 1981 (I am indebted to J for bringing this quote to my attention, in the random quote section. Bolding is mine throughout the article.):

Now, I say the same thing. Neither did I, when God began to open my mind, go to other people. [Really? Would this statement mean you did not used information from other written sources?] I did not go to a religious seminary. I went to this Bible. I began to find that EVERYTHING I’D BEEN TAUGHT WAS WRONG! AND I THREW IT ALL OUT. I began from scratch!

In 1953 HWA wrote the following in his article No! I was Never was a "Jehovah's Witness," or a Seventh Day Adventist!:

I learned God's TRUTH directly from GOD - thru His WORD - the Holy Bible. I did not learn it from any sect or denomination....No, MEN did not teach me what I preach to you [that would include British-Israelism]. I was not taught of men, but of GOD!

From Chapter 20 of HWA's Autobiography:

After exhaustive study and research [which we are told was done only from the Bible. After all God's Apostle just told us above "I learned God's TRUTH directly from GOD - thru His WORD - the Holy Bible."], I had found it PROVED that the so-called "Lost Ten Tribes" of Israel had migrated to western Europe, the British Isles, and later the United States -- that the British were the descendants of Ephraim, younger son of Joseph, and the United States modern-day Manasseh, elder son of Joseph -- and that we possessed the national wealth and resources of the Birthright which God had promised to Abraham through Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.

This is the story HWA would have us believe.

Is this really the case? Did he only use the Bible to discover his revelations? Surely he would have us believe that no "MEN" were responsible for giving him "the truth". Did he, as he said 'learned God's TRUTH directly from GOD - thru His WORD - the Holy Bible'? Is this true?

A most uncharacteristic crack in the facade appeared in 1969. Look at what HWA wrote in his personal on p. 4 of the August 1969 Good News:

Also, even during the initial six-months' study before baptism, a minister in Florida I had contacted by mail, wrote saying that unless I knew of the identity of the United States and the British as the Birthright people of Israel--heading the so-called "Lost Ten Tribes," I was IGNORANT! So I obtained all the literature I could find on the subject [would this include J. H. Allen?], comparing every point with the Bible. I found many errors--errors in every book or pamphlet I could find on the subject. But what I did find in the Bible PROVED our identity. This was the needed KEY to unlock all the prophecies!

WCG, in this marvelous expose' article which proves that HWA did plagiarize, identifies this Florida man as one Lincoln McConnell. He found many errors in the books teaching British-Israelism yet he decided to trust them anyway despite their 'many' errors.

When I first read him insisting he "learned God's TRUTH directly from GOD - thru His WORD - the Holy Bible" I certainly did not expect him to have discovered British-Israelism by reading books that discussed it.

Also observe these similarities as reported by Ambassador Watch. (The citations may be seen at the AW post.) Half come from HWA, the other half are from J. H. Allen:

1a. Remember that the term "Jew" is merely a nickname for "Judah." Hence, it applies to only to the one nation, or House of Judah only - never to the House of Israel.

1b. The name Jew is derived from, or rather is a corruption of, the name Judah.... Hence it is that the names Jew and Jews are applied only to the people who composed the kingdom of Judah.

2a. But the great bulk of Israelites are not the Jews, just as the great bulk of Americans are not Californians, and yet all Californians are Americans.
2b. Jews are Israelites, just as Californians are Americans. But most Israelites are not Jews, just as most Americans are not Californians.

3a. That Dan's leap landed him in Ireland is evident, for in that island we find to this day Dans-Lough, Dan-Sower, Dan-Monism, Dun-dalke, Dun-drum, Don-egal Bay and Don-egal City, with Dun-glow and Lon-don-derry just north of them.

3b. And in Ireland we find they left these "waymarks": "Dans-Laugh," "Dan-Sower," "Dun-dalke," "Dun-drum," "Don-egal Bay," "Don-egal City," "Dun-glow," "Lon-don-derry,"...

Note that none of them are quotes from the Bible.

They are so similar it is hard to tell which is which. Look at 3a and 3b. They are so similar!

Remember when the July 1953 Plain Truth told believers that the British Coronation Stone is actually the stone Jacob slept on at Bethel? Well, imagine my surprise when I learned that this idea was also taught by British-Israelism, as may be seen in the picture here.

Yet despite such overwhelming evidence of plagiarism some true believers continue to insist otherwise.

In one example Gary Rethford of PCG wrote an article in the November-December 2003 Royal Vision entitled Herbert W. Armstrong Not Guilty! discussing the plagiarism. This article may be seen in a three page PDF file.

First various quotes from personal letters by WCG during the Changes are used to define the charge against HWA. They are used in such a way that "plagiarism" is subtly redefined as "copying". This is from p. 1:

"one major reason we discontinued Mr. Armstrong's book The United States and Britain in Prophecy was that it copied major portions from Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright, an earlier work by J. H. Allen....you will find that many of the chapter headings are identical and large sections of the text match virtually word for word." So, according to Mr. Hunsberger, plagiarism is the copying of the entirety or major portions of another author's text without giving credit. Using similar phrases to to describe standard terms and concepts, however, is not plagiarism.

Notice how Hunsberger's writings are used to define plagiarism as requiring that "large sections of the text match virtually word for word." This article is trying to turn "plagiarism" into "copying" hoping the reader will not notice this slight of hand. The possibility taking an idea and rewording it without giving credit is subtly ignored in this article.

if we were to compare, word for word [Note the emphasis on "word for word".], the two manuscripts in question...we would see that according to Hunsberger, Mr. Armstrong had copied "large sections" of the text.

It then claims that HWA never claimed to have developed the doctrine of British-Israelism. "The truth is, Mr. Armstrong never claimed to have been the originator of the teaching."

Then how are supposed to explain the fact that he never acknowledged J. H. Allen in the US&BIP, or the previous quotes shown above, where HWA clearly say, "I learned God's TRUTH directly from GOD - thru His WORD - the Holy Bible"?

"Earlier editions plagiarized vast portions of... Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright. ...[W]e can see that he copied it ..." Now, that is a lie! They never saw that it was copied, because it wasn't!

Note the use of the word "copied". He is subtly using a slight of hand to change "plagiarism" into "copying".

Pretending that "plagiarism" means "copying" does not prove that HWA is not guilty of plagiarism.

He then cites the statement saying all Californians are Americans but not all Americans are Californians. Notes that at first HWA used Oregonian in earlier editions but this is just a confusing distraction that obscures the other similarities including those cited above.

Now we move into p. 2.

Then referring back to the July 22, 1993 letter the article say, "[WCG] charged that Mr. Armstrong plagiarized two basic ways: 1) vast amounts of copied text, and 2) the same format J. H. Allen used." [Again note the emphasis of "copied". Also the letter cited did not say "vast amounts".]

Then he mentions that PCG did a word test with Wcopyfind 2.2. It identifies identical words and phrases within the two documents. The result of their test was that "the greatest portion of "hits" (approximately 99 percent) WERE FROM QUOTED PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE, or references back to those scriptures....IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE to write on the subject without using those quoted scriptures!" This last sentence tries to make it appear that all the similarities are caused by the abundance of quoted scriptures. Were any of the HWA/J. H. Allen quotes shown above Scriptural quotations?

"The TESTS CONCLUSIVELY DISPROVE the charge that any copying of J. H. Allen occurred....In fact, it is demonstrable, over and over again, that no indication OF ANY KIND exists to show that Herbert W. Armstrong plagiarized any information from J. H. Allen, or anyone else!"

This is nonsense.

Observe the HWA and J. H. Allen quotes above. Are they copied word or word, or rather do they present the same ideas in a similar fashion?

It seems safe to assume that this program searches for word for word matches and would have missed such close similarities.

Then this article presents a 1980 Bible study tape by HWA. This is supposed to show HWA disproving the plagiarism charge but in reality it shows a man totally caught in the grip of cognitive dissonance.

Observe: "[a certain religious scholar, Mr. Melton] says I burrowed all of the truth from the Sardis people except that I burrowed some truth from some other people. Now THAT IS A BALD-FACED LIE! I did not get it from people!"

So HWA has denied that he got 'the truth' from 'people'. Now observe the very next thing he says. "It's true that I had read one or two other writings [so much not getting the truth from people.], and that book of J. H. [now we move into p. 3.] Allen on the truth about the lost Ten Tribes, but...'

And then he confuses the listener by suddenly switching the topic and going back into his typical story about how he was prompted to study the Bible because of his wife's sabbatarianism. (He is trying to confuse us.) He tells of how he disproved evolution, and proved the Bible is the word of God. This has nothing to do with British-Israelism or plagiarism.

Eventually he gets back to the topic: "I did examine their beliefs--some of them. I examined this so-called Anglo-Israel theory ... but I checked it very carefully with the Bible, and I only believed what I saw in the Bible, and I didn't believe and even threw out a lot of what they had." Saying he believed only what was in the Bible is his way of saying he took what HE liked and took out what HE (not God) did not like.

Then he gets angry, accusing Mr. Melton of characterizing British-Israelism as a racist belief and he passionately denied that. Again, this issue of racism has nothing to do with plagiarism. He is again distracting us. He is demonizing Melton and trying to arouse his followers' anger.

"and I'm supposed to have gotten most of what I believe from the Sardis people, and I got this from the Anglo-Israel people...but they can't understand that you could get truth from anybody but people--because he got everything he believes from people. Most people do." I don't know any religious leader on the face of the Earth who received what he knows except he got it from other people." He has completely contradicted himself. One moment he says God revealed it to him, now he says he read it but only took the parts he liked. He admits that he did take some ideas from British-Israelites, then the next moment ridicules Melton for saying what he himself just admitted.

And this is supposed to prove he did not plagiarize and he cannot even keep a coherent thought when discussing this.

PCG also address this issue in Raising the Ruins, Chapter 4. Or does it?

In Transformed by Truth, Mr. Tkach Jr. wrote, “In fact, it is no secret that Herbert Armstrong’s The United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy was copied from a book titled Judah’s Scepter and Joseph’s Birthright by J.H. Allen.” He offers no support for this plagiarism charge. [Stephen Flurry rubbishes Tkach Jr.'s lack of cited evidence, but, strangely, SF has not sought to see if anyone else might have evidence to substantiate this charge, such as this non-premillenialist example which features even more side by side comparisons. This focus solely upon Tkach Jr.'s criticism as though he is the only one who needs to be refuted, as though only WCG and PCG exist and no one else matters, is a problem that occurres elsewhere in this book.] It’s just true because he says so—it’s “no secret”—everyone knows Mr. Armstrong “copied” it. But if you actually take the time to examine the two books, you will find that they are entirely different. Yes, ENTIRELY.

"Just because both books discuss the modern identity of the lost 10 tribes of ancient Israel does not mean Mr. Armstrong “copied” Allen.

Did you see what Stephen Flurry just did here? He has subtly changed the area of debate. The book has just done a slight of hand. The issue is not "Plagiarism" now, but "Copying". Using Tkach Jr.'s quote as a platform he has subtly changed the debate. This subtle change is done so quickly the reader may very well miss it. "Plagiarism" has been changed into "copying" and the reader may very well miss it.

The unfamiliar reader will have no idea of that the charge with HWA was that he plagiarized. This section allows the uninformed to think the issue has been properly addressed, while in reality "plagiarism" has actually been ignored and replaced by "copying".

The rest of this section is then used to emphasize the differences between J. H. Allen and HWA.

NONE of those differences disprove the plagiarism charge AT ALL!!

What cunning wordsmiths these people are.

This book only pretends to answer the plagiarism issue. It has cunningly side stepped the issue.

When I first read that section I was taken aback by it and wondered just what had been done here. It only a few weeks later, when I looked at it again, that I saw how the issue is subtly defined as being about "copying" instead of "plagiarism".

Despite what the few desperate true believers would like to pretend it must be painfully acknowledged that HWA just stole British-Israelism from J.H. Allen. Their desperate attempts to change "plagiarism" into "copying" cannot prove that HWA did not plagiarize J. H. Allen. This article shows in exquisite detail precisely how HWA acquired the doctrine of British-Israelism. He certainly did not gain it just by studying the Bible.

HWA is a plagiarizer.

Zechariah 14, FOT and Second Tithe

Awhile ago I ran into this Ambassador Watch post. There it was written that 'Yes it's Sukkoth (sue-coat), a.k.a. the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths. Not that anyone in the post-WCG tradition constructs booths from branches, or even sets up a bunk bed in the garden shed, but that's another issue.' These words got my mind on a track of thought which I will now detail.

Here is what I thought:

Zechariah 14: 16-19 is often used to say that the Feast of Tabernacles is to be observed by Christians today.

According to Armstrongite interpretation this shows that those living in the Millennial rule of Christ must observe the Feast of Tabernacles.

But there are actually severe problems with this interpretation for Armstrongites.

Let's be really generous and assume the Armstrongites have got most of it right in this matter of the interpretation of Zechariah 14: 16-19. Let us, for the sake of argument, assume that this scripture actually does refer to events after Christ's return and that those verses are an accurate depiction of what shall happen in the Millenium as it is interptreted by Armstrongism.

Even if we assume all those points to be true, Zechariah 14: 16-19 still cannot be legitimately used to prove that we should embrace Armstrongism or that Armstrongism is the one true religion.

Why?

Because the Armstrongite Feast of Tabernacles is all wrong.

Observe how it was observed in Nehemiah 8: 14-17:

14 And they found written in the law which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month: 15 And that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying, Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and pine branches, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written. 16 So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the street of the water gate, and in the street of the gate of Ephraim. 17 And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.

This scripture shows that the booths which the children of Israel were required to dwell in were tents which were small enough to be placed on a flat roof. These booths were placed on each individual person's roof.

When I read the recruitment writings LCG made and I learned about the Feast of Tabernacles I read about it in the Bible. I perceived then that it should be observed by being in a tent in the appointed time.

But the COGs do not observe it in that manner. Instead they observe by coming together into large gatherings all over the world. They do not set up tents on their property. (Of course because we do no use flat roofs we would have to place the booth in our property.) This is not what is described 'in your own Bible' in Nehemiah 8: 14-17.

Also note how the Jews celebrate Sukkoth. Look at the Wikipedia articles on Sukkot and Sukkah. Look at the pictures. The Jews certainly do not observe this festival by gathering themselves together in some massive gathering far away to meet with like-minded people but, rather, observe it in their own homes.

Since Armstrongism observes this feast in an inaccurate manner therefore they cannot legitimately claim this as a proof that they are right. Therefore their Feasts of Tabernacles are inaccurate.

Since the Armstrongite FOT is illegitimate than Second Tithe, which is mainly used (if I understand it correctly) to allow the believer to observe this incorrectly observed festival, is thus being used for improper purposes.

As far as I understand it HWA first ordered his followers to pay Second Tithe in a October 3, 1945 co-worker letter, specifically to pay for the members' participation in the FOT.

Since Second Tithe is being used to celebrate the FOT in an inaccurate manner therefore the COGs have no right to use Second Tithe to pay for the incorrect observance of FOT. The Armstrongite practice contradict the Biblical practice as recorded in Nehemiah 8: 14-17.

So if the Armstrongite FOT is inaccurately observed then there is no legitimate reason to use Zechariah 14: 16-19 as a proof text for their observance of FOT because their practice of it is inaccurate.

However if the 'Apostle' HWA chose to observe the FOT in a more scripturally based manner, with his followers building a sukkah at home, he would have found it impossible to solidify his followers and bind them even more under his control. How do you build up an identity, a shared consciousness among fellow believers, by having everyone celebrating in tents in their own homes for eight days?

So he chose an observance style more effective for his purposes of further solidifying his control over his followers. He did this by commanding them to come together, meet many other fellow believers, make them feel part of something greater than themselves. Also HWA and his minions could make the members to listen only to what HWA and the leadership desired. Create milieu control,which is one of Lifton's Eight Criteria of Thought Reform.

And so the inaccurately observed FOT is used as convenient mind control method and used to justify the acquisition of Second Tithe.

And so one can see that there are many problems with using Zechariah 14: 16-19 as a proof that Armstrongism is the true religion because the Bible shows that they do not observe it properly. And furthermore once the Armstrongite understanding of the observance of the FOT is rejected this also removes the purpose for Second Tithe. So it is seen that error builds upon error.

Also relevant to this discussion is this testimony that argues that the FOT is a mind control trick and this article under the heading 'All Will Keep the Feast (Zechariah 14)' which argues that during the future Millenium it will be required to observe the FOT but that under the New Covenant observance of the FOT is not required.

And so that was the train of thought my Biblically-derived, non-Armstronite expectations of the FOT and that comment on Ambassador Watch led me to think concerning Zechariah 14 and the Feast of Tabernacles.

The Kingdom of Matthias

One book that those interested in Armstrongism may find intriguing is the history book The Kingdom of Matthias (1995) by Paul E. Johnson and Sean Wilentz. It is the tale of another false prophet, Robert Matthews, who started up a little community of brainwashed followers in the 1830s, and who claimed to be a reincarnation of the Apostle Matthias. I read it a few months ago and I found it a superbly written history book, very easy to read. It reads like a novel and you can really visualize it all.

Now without spoiling the story the reason why I wish to highlight it here is that this particular prophet, like HWA, adopted various Judaic practices, such as Sabbath observance, observing Old Testament meat laws. Those details do not impact upon the story in any major way. He also shared some other disturbing similarities with HWA's WCG. But I will not go into them here lest I spoil the story.

I am not suggesting that there is any connection between the two men but it is curious that they should have such similarities. This book is not about Armstrongism at all. It just so happens that this false prophet shared some doctrinal similarities with HWA.

More PCG Hyperbole and Curious Testimonies

This is from the article 'Continuing the Fight' by Dennis Leap in the February 2002 Philadelphia Trumpet, under the heading 'Largest Audience Possible'. Here PCG is trying to justify why they should be allowed to publish Mystery of the Ages:

[Gerald Flurry] considered [Mystery of the Ages] a vital part of doing the work. Mr. Flurry called it “the magnificent summary of all Mr. Armstrong’s work—THE ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE OF HIS ENTIRE MINISTRY.”

His entire ministry?

What about the time when HWA prophesied Christ's return for 1936? His identification of Mussolini (and then Hitler) as the prophesied 'World Dictator' during WWII? Or the next date setting with Christ set to return in 1975? None of those are discussed in Mystery of the Ages so how can it be called 'the accumulated knowledge of his entire ministry'?

Again this is just more misleading hyperbole.

The issue also contains Stephen Flurry's article 'The Legacy of Herbert Armstrong', which is a brief sketch of WCG history, much of which would later be used in Chapter 2 of Raising the Ruins.

It gives a brief history of HWA's religious career. Cunningly no mention is made of 1936, Mussolini and then Hitler being identified as the 'World Dictator', his many predictions that the USA would fall to Hitler's Nazi hordes and only the Second Coming will stop him. There is also no mention of the 1972/1975 prophecy of the Great Tribulation and the Second Coming occurring in that time.

One amusing thing about this article is that under the heading 'Those Close to Mr. Armstrong' this article cites the testimonies of Larry Omasta, Norman Smith, Dexter Faulkner, Ellis La Ravia, Roderick Meredith, Leroy Neff and Frank Brown to show what a great man HWA was. If these men's testimonies are good enough to prove that HWA was a great man, why is it that no mention is made of the fact that NONE of these men have judged PCG worthy of the honour of their prescence?

Norman Smith, Dexter Faulkner and Larry Omasta accepted the Tkach Changes and stayed with WCG. Ellis La Ravia and Leroy Neff are now with UCG. Roderick Meredith now leads LCG. And Frank Brown is now a part of the Sacred Names Movement.

None of them joined PCG.

If these men's testimonies are reliable enough to prove that HWA was a great man what are we to make of the fact that none of them chose to follow PCG?

If this is the PCG, praising Mystery of the Ages as 'the accumulated knowledge of his entire ministry' and then evade HWA's false prophecies (and then change the book), then this is not good enough at all.

"You Will Gain Precious Insights and Information Available Nowhere Else"

Recently LCG sent their co-workers a DVD featuring four Tomorrow's World broadcasts, one by each of the presenters. I got one too. Instead of talking about how you can be saved by Jesus they chose to send out programs about fear-inducing (false) prophecy.

I seriously considered destroying the DVD. But I decided to watch it. I wondered how I would view these broadcasts now that I had renounced Armstrongism. I watched Roderick C. Meredith's broadcast.

After watching Meredith's broadcast I think I shall keep it. I am actually glad they gave it to me. Why?

Well, at the end of his broadcast, The Power of Prophecy, beginning at 26:53, Meredith said, "You will gain precious insights and information available nowhere else."

This statement may well have been true when he first got caught up in Armstrongism, but he very well knows that there are many other Armstrongite churches that preach exactly the same thing as Tomorrow's World teaches. Some little details differ from sect to sect, but what unites them is far greater than what divides them.

When I discovered YouTube I soon ran into UCGia's TV program, Beyond Today: The Next Superpower. Even though I had been aware of UCG for years, thanks to LCG apologist Bob Theil's website, I was still amazed that this show taught the same thing as Tomorrow's World. That the Beast is a revival of the Roman Empire, etc, etc.

There are also many other places out there where one can learn about HWA's doctrines. There are literally hundreds of Churches of God out there, as he knows very well, many of them continuing to teach much of HWA's writings.

So that assertion, and I can personally testify that he was using precisely that kind of language when I first started watching his program way back in 2000, is simply not true.

How dare you say something that is simply untrue.

This reminds me that back in June 2008 Stan reported that Roderick Meredith on his faculty page at Living University portray Meredith as having graduated from Ambassador University. It still says that.

This also reminds of what one former LCG member wrote in this letter, "When I was in LCG in 2001, Meredith was like a chameleon and could change at will. He was very slick and I witnessed him lie whenever it served his purposes."

Also in AR 29 October 1984, under the heading 'Meredith's Counseling' the following was written concerning what Robert Hoops, who at the time was a minister with Garner Ted Armstrong's CGI, had to say about Roderick Meredith:

During a deposition and later with us privately, Hoops described how, when Meredith once counseled his wife, Meredith made such insensitive and unwarranted accusations against him that his wife cried for a week. When he found out later what had been said about him, he became so depressed he was almost suicidal. Said Hoops, "When you have really committed your life to the church and believe the ministry represents God, a harsh assessment of you by a superior can literally create severe emotional trauma." On the stand, Hoops was asked by Stuart for his opinion of Meredith. But Judge Olson disallowed the question. Later, however, Hoops was quite candid with us about his assessment of Meredith's character.

"Meredith is a liar," said Hoops. "But that isn't surprising when you consider how big a liar he works for." Sadly, Hoops' opinion of Meredith is shared by many ministers who served under him in years past.

Alas! Because of the misleading statement he made in his TV program I regretfully am forced to conclude that such an assessment seems most reasonable to believe.

After seeing him make such an obviously untrue statement on TV, what other conclusion can there be?

To paraphrase what Stan said on that Ambassador Reports blog about him then, "Tell the truth!!"

"[WCG] Wanted to Suppress Mr. Armstrong's Teachings"

By the way, while I reading Chapter 17 of Raising the Ruins for my last blog I noticed these words, under the heading 'The Ad Campaign'. (Emphasis mine.)

they [WCG] wanted to suppress Mr. Armstrong’s teachings.

Is that really true? Was WCG trying to suppress HWA's teachings?

Look at what Stephen Flurry himself wrote in the last paragraph, 'They [WCG lawyers] said that while the PCG is free to believe [Mystery of the Ages]’s teachings, we could not go so far as to publish it. To do that, we would have to come up with our “own original expression of the ideas.”'

What is so unreasonable about that demand?

LCG made their own writings , UCGia made their own writings, RCG made their writings, CGI (Garner Ted Armstrong's first sect) made their own writings. None of them demanded to use HWA's own writings which were owned by WCG.

All WCG was asking was that PCG simply do what all these other sects were doing. They were not trying to 'suppress HWA's teachings'.

They were not trying to prevent PCG from expressing their religion or preaching it to others. WCG simply wanted them to stop publishing a book that they owned.

So we see then that WCG was not trying to suppress HWA's teachings. In their own church, yes, but not in the other COGs.

Those words '[WCG] wanted to suppress Mr. Armstrong’s teachings' are nothing more than misleading polemic, inaccurate inflammatory rhetoric.

Would a true man of God allow himself to say something that is obviously not true?

Is Stephen Flurry even paying attention to what he is writing?

TELL THE TRUTH!! For crying out loud!

Why I Read Raising the Ruins

Near the end of Chapter 17 of Raising the Ruins Stephen Flurry relates how PCG bought some advertising space in some newspapers starting in March 1997 soon after the Court Case began. It is portrayed as a stroke of genius because soon after these ads appeared Tkach Jr., who was finishing writing Transformed by Truth, made a comment in the book about the Court Case saying WCG felt it was their 'Christian duty' to prevent PCG from distributing HWA's writings. This comment allowed PCG to portray WCG as using their copyright to violate PCG's freedom of religion. Over and over again, even within this book, that statement was used as a polemic club against WCG.

Now I was long aware of the existence of Raising the Ruins, but I had no interest in it. At least not enough to read it. That only changed, however, when I saw this newspaper advertisement produced by PCG in New Zealand, courtesy of Que. As any ad is supposed to do this ad made me want to read it. Later I discovered I could read the whole book except the last chapter. Thank you, PCG, for that newspaper advertisement. If I had not seen it I never would have bothered to write about this book.

Analysis of Raising the Ruins Abridged

I covered at some length the various deficiencies I saw when I read Raising the Ruins by PCG's Stephen Flurry. In the order that I posted on the topics here are the various points that were raised:

Raising the Ruins:

• Condemns Tkachite WCG for using its authoritarian power to unleash the Changes while to this day his own organization (PCG) is just as dictatorial as he claims WCG to be.

• Hails Ambassador Auditorium in Chapter 2 as a 'legacy that was neither heavy nor burdensome' naively ignoring the reality that it was a severe financial drain. This may explain why PCG decided to build Armstrong Auditorium.

• President Reagan's condolences were misleadingly presented as an endorsement of HWA ignoring the fact that President Reagan was a Sunday-keeper who never accepted Armstrongism.

• Shows contempt for Tkach Jr. calling Armstrongite acceptance 'spiritual rape' and implies that only Tkach Jr. (PCG views him as the Man of Sin of 2 Thessalonians 2) would be so wicked as to label 'accepting the Truth' in such a manner, when in reality that phrase is often used by many ex-members, not just Tkach Jr., the alleged Man of Sin.
  

• (All those points above may be seen here.)

• Approvingly quotes HWA's statement in Mystery of the Ages that 'Scholars and church historians recognize' that there was a 'Dark Curtain' upon church history in 50-150 AD when it has been conclusively proven that none of the historians HWA quoted believed in such a ridiculous theory. In reality the Dark Curtain (50-150 AD) theory was used to bestow a numerical significance to the World Tomorrow's first broadcast in Europe in 1953 so HWA could say the Gospel was suppressed for 100 19-year time cycles (1900 years). (See Raising the Ruins, Chapter 4.)
  

• Cites a PCG lawyer as saying that 'There is no rewriting of the book [Mystery of the Ages] that can happen....they can’t be rewritten.' (Chapter 19). An utterance which Gerald Flurry hailed as divinely inspired. 'He [Gerald Flurry] reminded Dennis Leap and me about what we had seen....God inspired Mark Helm’s oral argument at the Ninth Circuit.' (Chapter 20). And yet Gerald Flurry chose to go against what he himself acknowledged as divinely inspired words and altered Mystery of the Ages, going against an aspect of Armstrongite understanding of church government that dates to at least 1953 concerning the role of New Testament Prophets.

• Deceptively hides and obscures from the unsuspecting the hard facts of the medicine ban which is imposed on PCG members to this very day.

• Advances PCG's fixation on January 16 despite the many problems this doctrine has.

• Desperately tries to portray Tkach Sr. as just a puppet and that instead Tkach Jr. was the mastermind of the Changes. This is done to hide the fact that Gerald Flurry made a failed prophecy in which he originally labeled Tkach Sr. as the Man of Sin of 2 Thessalonians 2. He now says Tkach Jr. fulfills that role.

• Focus solely on the struggles between WCG and PCG, almost totally hiding from the unsuspecting readers knowledge of other Armstrongite splinter groups.

• Gives the impression that only PCG is trying to preserve HWA's writings. Yet others have been involved in the task of preserving HWA's writings, including one Don Tiger who used to be associated with PCG. Their contributions to spreading HWA's writings and Mystery of the Ages are contemptuously ignored.

• Says PCG must expose the wrongs of WCG completely hiding the fact that many others, Armstrongite and non-Armstrongite, have fulfiled that role with gusto.

• Idolatrously extols Mystery of the Ages for much of Chapter 16. This among other things, hides the fact that PCG has given themselves the liberty of corrupting the words of Mystery of the Ages, the very book they supposedly love so much.

• Omits much vital information that would cause many potential recruits to ignore PCG, such as: 1) Gerald Flurry being hailed as That Prophet, 2,3) Second and Third Tithes, 4) that Malachi's Message is the Little Book and 5) was revealed to Gerald Flurry by a mighty angel and 6) unsurprisingly hides the fact that Malachi's Message was plagiarized, 7) that ex-members and 'Laodiceans' are shunned by PCG members.

• Claims that the Book of Habbakkuk was a prophecy about the Court Case predicting the outcome of the Court Case. Would God help an organization that has been as deceptive as has been shown here?
  

• (The last six points may be seen here.)
  

As may be seen there are many distortions and misrepresentations to be found in this book, Raising the Ruins. God could not work with an organization that so consistently fails to tell the truth. Therefore God cannot be in PCG and it is an illegitimate organization.

May the Lord help those within PCG to see the light, and to see that it is totally unnecessary to follow some self-proclaimed (false) Prophet to find God. May the Lord protect those to whom this deceitful book, Raising the Ruins, is targeted at.

Words of Wisdom from the Vita Packatollah

The 'Apostle' Dave Pack has released Volume 1 of an authorized autobiography.

Let us see what he has to say.

This is from Chapter 15, under the heading '1974 Rebellion' (Emphasis mine throughout):

A growing number of ministers and leaders in the Church, in part led by the CAD Director and Garner Ted Armstrong, began changing certain long-held doctrines and Church traditions.

This is a typical HWA-loyalist interpretation of what happened in 1974. Just blame everyone else except the leader: HWA.

...In addition, these self-deceived men naturally found themselves disgruntled with Mr. Herbert Armstrong. They began to question his authority,

Dave Pack gives no sympathy to those who dared to ask questions.

To make matters worse, it was common knowledge that Garner Ted Armstrong had been engaging in various forms of grave and repeated personal misconduct. This hypocrisy at such a high level led to further criticism of Church leadership. Of course, many ministers found fault with how they perceived Ted’s behavior was being handled.

Whether they knew it or not, questioning authority on even small issues [is Garner Ted Armstrong's immorality a 'small issue' I wonder?] is a slippery slope. If a leader is willing to question Church government on a small decision, what would stop him from doing so on a larger scale? (Emphasis mine)

So criticizing how HWA favored his son is discouraged by Dave Pack as starting one on a slippery slope to getting kicked out of the church. This implants fear into his followers in order to scare them, intimidate them, into not asking questions of the leadership of Dave Pack's Restored Church of God.

He chooses to criticize such questioning behavior when it is directed at the leadership. Criticizing something that the leadership does which is obviously wrong is clearly discouraged here. This allows the leadership, in this case the 'Apostle' Dave Pack, to do whatever he wants. Members are not allowed the right to criticize that which is wrong if it is done by the leadership. This is evidence that Dave Pack is an abusive leader. A healthy, functional leadership will not be afraid of criticism, unlike this so-called Apostle.

CGI: The New Addition to the Alphabet Soup

So WCG finally did it. They changed their name. As Joseph Tkach Jr. has stated.

Reactions have been very diverse. I recall J's blog in the old Shadows of WCG blog calling for a name change to accurately reflect the dramatic changes that have occurred. Gavin Rumney and J have called for WCG to embrace democracy, viewing the name change as merely cosmetic. Russell Miller also views it as just a cosmetic change. AggieAtheist has expressed outrage that WCG thinks they can just forget the past. LCG apologist Bob Thiel is glad WCG has chosen to further disassociate themselves from their Armstrongite past. More reactions may be seen here courtesy of AggieAtheist.

Now as mentioned before my involvement with Armstrongism was somewhat distant, so I am will bring to attention a little thing here.

Now WCG can do whatever they want with their name. But...My word! Now we all have to learn another acronym! Just imagine what Wikipedia will have to say now. 'In 1995 20,000 people left WCG (now renamed Grace Communion International) to form UCGia.' Every time WCG will get mentioned it will have to be patiently explained that they are now called Grace Communion International.

And so the alphabet soup gets a bit larger.