Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Title Amendment Proposal[edit]

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)[reply]

Are you kidding? Darn tootin' I have objections...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. So "assume good faith" doesn't apply to the subject material? 2607:FB91:798C:D1E:316C:8DC0:D78C:8AAC (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree that the idea of a cult is too strong. There was pressure similar to fear based religions like RCC and many other groups, but not a cult. The core teachings were right on scripture. (BH)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I personally heard that taught; ie that all those gathered for the battle of armageddon would not fight each other but turn on the returning Christ(BH)

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The first post reads "I would like to amend the section title: 'Beginnings of ministry' To 'The Genesis of a Deceptive Bible-Based Cult." I disagree. This statement is an opinionated statement which is trying to lead the reader to another's doctrinal opinion. I do not think that other faiths would wish to see there "beginnings" titled by others as a cult. As an extreme example, some think the Roman Catholic church is a glorified cult. Stick to words and analyses that are objective and non-inflammatory. MikePrescott June 16, 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikeprescott (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approachable[edit]

"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)[reply]

Copied from "Archive 7"[edit]

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)[reply]

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[edit]

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)[reply]

I am curious as to why NO mention of Herbert W. Armstrong being accused of sexually abusing his daughter, Dorothy? He confessed to raping her and yet you make NO mention of it here. Is this conveniently left out of your glossy story of a man who was a sham and a monster? Here is the link for a source for you to consider: https://hwarmstrong.com/incest-herbert-armstrong-confesses.htm2603:7080:E503:4B00:AD4E:551C:960A:9076 (talk) 02:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1936[edit]

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)

HWA mande numerous end-time predictions. Unfortunately, I do not have the sources handy to reference them or the time to look them up at the present. Interesting that these predictions are not referenced by others on this page.Mikeprescott (talk) 20:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

"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)[reply]

Criticisms and controversy[edit]

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)[reply]

History[edit]

Herbert Armstrong's life story is highly controversial. His followers (who still exist in numerous offshoot churches) are extremely devote and defensive. On the other-hand, mainstream christianity took a hard-line against his teachings because of his unorthodoxy - i.e. anti-trinitarian, humans will become god-beings, keeping the sabbath and holy-days, clean and unclean meats, literal return of christ ruling a kingdom on earth, etc. As a result of these polar views there was a lot of difficulty getting a coherent and unbiased Wikipedia article going.

If memory serves me correctly, the criticisms and controversies section was created because it was difficult to elaborate on some of Armstrong's more controversial aspects within the article without a fight erupting with Armstrong-adherents. The controversies are a legitimate and real part of his history, but were most easily addressed by separating this into a stand-alone section under the banner of controversy. Perhaps interest in this page by Armstrong-adherents has died-down sufficiently that these more controversial elements can be blended into the page, but I suspect that it would be just a matter of time until some kind of editing war ensues. I would recommend keeping it separate.

I browsed some of the references and they are still relevant. If you have trouble understanding them please post your questions and I can explain some of the religious context. Keep in mind that Armstrong's era was before the web-age, so his writings mainly exist in now defunct books and PDFs scanned-in by adherents that are trying to preserve and spread his writings, hence the links to these repository-type pages that are hosted on what are presumably personal websites of adherents. If other sources were available then one could use those, but this is not likely because Armstrong and Armstrongism, which had its hey-day between the 60s and 80s, is slowly fading from memory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waitingwatch (talk • contribs) 17:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV Tag[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Historic issues[edit]

reading the HWA profile, you'll come across an accusation of pedophilia, the proof given is a newspaper article printed after divorce proceeding between Armstrong and his second wife. As a thing to observe, the Armstrong ministry was successful in a totally unprecedented capacity. It would be difficult not to have noticed it then. Armstrong's children and grandchildren were not in any way required to bother. If you're going to be part of an organization, you tow the line. You respect authority. You are part of a body and you do your function to support that body as your function is = there is grease in the engine, things work. Some wouldn't. That the David Robinson book (thought this was interesting) wasn't removed in a lawsuit isn't a surprise; that book was so far off into pulp fiction, it was the crazy bum on the street, self proclaiming; and that some would repeat it, hearing parts of it somewhere else or wanting to tabloid a sensationalist libel because they felt good doing it, is no unusual thing. Incredulity for some, justifies a drunken inept violence, ignorant no less, because it feels good; violating of someone else's property. In society news, in the office world of affairs and promotions, not uncommon behavior. So if in divorce court proceedings, a person with intentions goes eye-balls deep or uses libel blackmail; that's not evidence because it passed by an editor, but slanderous gossip; a shot at the knees. They know that readers normally won't exercise discernment but limply believe. People lie so when they steal from the lied about, no one will try to stop them, and then if they try to destroy, no one will protest. When Armstrong died, GCI famously spent that organization until there was nothing left, publishing slander for strangers to look at; who for refs and materials used, seem to be the strangers writing in order to write about the Armstrong ministry,..which we can do here in a free capitalist place(glad to be here). Intent is visible in the written results.Cpriceecirpc 04:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, do you have any suggestions? Theroadislong (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Middle initial W[edit]

I've checked through the talk page archives but could not find any earlier discussion of this, which is a bit weird.

Externally, there's the reported testimony of Armstrong himself, who is said to have said it stood for nothing at all, it just sounded better that way.[1] [2].

But then, a genealogy done by someone connected with the WCG "speculates" that it's Wright, in honour of his mother's maiden name.[3]

Is there anything authoritative about this W and what it stands for, if anything? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 00:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Herbert W. Armstrong. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert W. Armstrong. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Herbert W. Armstrong. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2021[edit]

201.223.31.235 (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC) "señor" inhumano wikipedia ,pq encubren a un violador ,pedófilo y perpetrador de violaciones a ddhh? Tanta plata les llovió como para hablar HIPÓCRITAMENTE de que la página está restringida por actos vandálicos ,no les da vergüenza ser una fuente tan poco humana y confiable ?[reply]

Ww

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sincerely, Deauthorized. (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophilia and child abuse[edit]

This man confessed to raping his own daughter and his church ran a boy's home when children were tortured and raped. An episode of "Haunted" on Netflix showcases one of the former student's stories about his abuse which was under the guise of gay conversion therapy. Change his later in life, education, and legacy sections to reflect this.

This is a link to an article about his incest, and again, Netflix has a whole episode about him on "Haunted".

https://hwarmstrong.com/incest-herbert-armstrong-confesses.htm

"Ambassador for World Peace"[edit]

It is claimed that HWA was "internationally recognized as Ambassador for World Peace". In addition to not saying when this supposed recognition was supposed to have been bestowed or describing the actual scope of the recognition (there are a lot of things that are supposedly international, doesn't mean they're actually so), the only two sources cited are a book written by Stephen Flurry and published by the Philadelphia Church of God (which Stephen's father Gerald Flurry founded in order to revive the practices of the Armstrongist-era Worldwide Church of God and with which Stephen is himself actively involved as a prominent member of the thetrumpet.com staff and as the Dean of Students at the PCG's Herbert W. Armstrong College), and another book written by Stanley R. Rader and published by the same Armstrongist-era WCG for whom Rader was an attorney, accountant, author, and evangelist; ergo, these two sources have every incentive to present Armstrong as something that he actually wasn't. Are there any non-Armstrongist sources that definitely say something along the lines of "HWA was recognised by so-and-so as Ambassador for World Peace between 19XX and 1986/earlier than 1986"?--Dvaderv2 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Herbert_W._Armstrong&oldid=1205487753"