Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong

Title Amendment Proposal

I would like to amend the section title: 'Beginnings of ministry' To 'The Genesis of a Deceptive Bible-Based Cult.' Does anyone raise any objections? contribs) 05:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Pos777 (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Darn tootin' I have objections...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you just ruled yourself out as an unbiased editor for this page. Wikiwikiwaki (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just checking that certain people with a strong belief in the God-ordained prophet status of Armstrong where still monitoring this page, since everything went quiet for many months after I posted the table above. I see that once again the article has been changed to read like an advert for Armstrongism, with no mention of the true controversial nature of it’s subject and with no prior discussion on this page. It reads like an article about Hitler with no mention of WW2. It’s a disservice to the encyclopaedia and to it’s users. I say ‘teach the controversy.’ A phrase probably not unfamiliar to recent editors of this page. You guys sure use scientology-like marketing techniques. Of course this is no surprise since in his autobiography Armstrong told of his great admiration for Hubbard and how he visited with him to get tips on setting up his organisation.Pos777 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the teaching of United Europe fighting Christ at his return, this is an error. His teaching was that at the time of Armeggedon, all nations would gather together to fight which would be the EU and related nations against the hordes of the East. At that time Christ returns and all the nations present at that battle will fight against him. Revelation 16:16 and 19:19. Can you update that section? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.151.151 (talk) 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation of Armstong stating that all nations would gather together to fight which would be the EU and related nations against the 'hordes of the East.'? Pos777 (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(Applolgies for off topic) 'At that time Christ returns and all the nations present at that battle will fight against him.' I never got a real answer to this question, maybe you fellows can help? Christ's return must be quite far into the future if we will have developed weapons that can kill spirit beings as powerful as the creator of the universe by then. Or do the armies fight in some 'symbolic' way, somehow, like Satan, knowing they will lose, but simply exercising their rights to be evil? After all it would be pretty futile to take on the creator of the universe! Surly only the devil was made stupid enough to do that! So, will it be possible to actually 'fight' christ and win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pos777 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus warned of false teachers and false prophets. My question is... Why this guy? Why would this moron be a prophet? I agree with the title of "Genesis of a Deceptive Bible Based Cult" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.54.4 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

It's sad to see Wikipedia being used this way. Really, "Armstrongism"? What's next, retitling LDS as "Mormonism" and Islam as "Mohammedanism"?

As someone who doesn't particularly care for Armstrong one way or another, it's pretty obvious that a number of biased edits have crept in the same way they always do around here... by virtue of "compromise" with an extreme position.

• "John Smith is a demon-possessed Nazi motherf***er!"
• (Hey, wait, that's POV. Deleted.)
• "It has been alleged that John Smith holds supremacist views, and someone with a big ax to grind can be sourced as having once said he has incestuous relations with his maternal parent."
• (Okay, I guess that's kinda better...)

98.237.211.114 (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Approachable

"Armstrong taught that God only works through "one man at a time" and that he was God's man for his time. Consequently, his teachings are considered as unapproachable as are the apostle Paul's teachings."

What that has to do with "unapproachable", and whether Paul's teachings are unapproachable or not, are mysteries to me. I suspect that "unassailable" might be the idea the author had in mind. Addressing audiences of millions over the airwaves is hardly a way to put off approaches. Unfree (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied from "Archive 7"

9.2 Personality, personal conduct, and governance

This subtitle content is unncessary and negatively biased given the already lengthy discussion on Herbert Armstrong's life, work and writings therefore ought to be deleted.

It negates the fact that Armstrong: 1. Authored a free booklet "The Seven Laws of Success" and distributed a monthly magazine to enrich the public. 2. As Ambassador of World Peace though Ambassador International Cultural Foundation, the Second Tithe and Third Tithe fed, clothed, made comfortable or wealthy lives of the poor, widows and orphans.

ozark8—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manila davao ph (talk • contribs) 04:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Requesting {{editprotected}} full page protection for Herbert Armstrong from a biased organization and people who have problematic family histories who insist on unethically proving subject person wrong and villifying him.

ozark8

Personality, personal conduct and governance

I notice that this section has not been discussed for some time. I made an attempt to rewrite the section in a more neutral tone. I have also made an attempt to rewrite other sections of the article in a more neutral tone. I welcome any discussion or opinions about my edits.Russell Dent (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

1936

Why nothing about his end time's predictions of 1936? (talk) 14:46, 24 Mau 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.92.238 (talk)

Huh?

"Worldwide Church of God (WCG) members believed that Herbert W. Armstrong was Christ's apostle since the first century."

Jeremiah 17:9 (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Criticisms and controversy

The Criticisms and controversy section seems mostly relying on self published sources from I suspect, personal webpages. Looking at some of the statements that are supposedly backed by a source, when I look at the source for some I do not see how they are even related. Parts of this section are more of a Coatrack. It should be rewritten or parts removed. Basileias (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

POV Tag

This is the last remaining POV-tagged article from August 2007. Does anyone have any particular complaints or wishes before I lock down that backlog? -- LWG ^talk 16:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I did not remove this article from the backlog because of the section above. - RoyBoy 05:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)