“Apostolic Incest”

 better known as

Incestuous Rape”
________

It is universally reported that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the nations, so that one should have his father’s wife.”
1 Corinthians 5:1
Darby Bible Translation.

Click to Zoom!

 

Well how about a father having his wife’s daughter?

From Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, (1831).
Ezekiel 22:10 ~ “In thee have they discovered – They are guilty of the most abominable incest and unnatural lust.”
Quote ~ “On thee have they humbled – In their unholy and unnatural connexions, they have not abstained from those set apart because of their infirmities. The catalogue of crimes that follow is too plain to require comment.”

In Chapter 20 of David Robinson’s book, “Herbert Armstrong’s Tangled Web” the author spells out the reality of this crime, calling it not only a unnatural act but a crime punishable by death!

“How serious is the sin of incest, such as when a father uses his
authority to force himself on his own daughter, his own flesh? All
generations of the human family have viewed this conduct as an
unnatural act. The apostle Paul referred to a somewhat similar
relationship in the Corinthian church: ” … such fornication as is
not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have
his father’s wife” (I Cor. 5:1). Incest was disgusting beyond
measure to Paul, who was led to record his revulsion for posterity
in the inspired Bible.”

“Many American states legislated the death penalty in such cases
in the earlier years of this country. I knew personally of such a
case in Texas back in the 1950s. That father was executed in
Huntsville for such an act. He was convicted in Live Oak County,
Texas. He had seduced his thirteen-year-old daughter and had
continued the affair with her until relatives discovered the crime.
It was his own people who demanded the death penalty and the
State of Texas accommodated them. I don’t know for sure, but I
suspect the laws of Oregon and California were not all that
different during the thirties and forties.”

The $60,000 question is, do Armstrong supporters really care about his incestuous conduct? From what I have heard first hand from these folks, they seem not to be bothered with it. One of the first line of their defense is in the story of Lot or King David.

The bible doesn’t spare its hero’s faults from its readers. You get to see what their strengths and faults were. How about Herbert Armstrong’s faults? The sheep who follow the teachings of this man speak of him as if he was the son of God. But do they really want to see the other side of the coin? The seedy side?

And if they ever admit to themselves that all the evidence points towards a guilty verdict regarding his incestuous relationship with his daughter, what difference does it make to them personally?

The David Defense.

Unlike Herbert W. Armstrong, David never set himself up as a spiritual leader who had the authority from God to control every aspect of peoples’ lives. David knew that he was not allowed to build the temple because he had blood on his hands. Consider that David’s sins were the spur of the moment type, whereas Herbert W. Armstrong’s incest lasted for 10 years. There is no record of his repentance. No apology, no admission to guilt, no remorse for not only this above mentioned crime, but for ANY mistake he ever made.

Qualifications For Office.

1 Tim 3:2-12
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

If we use the bible as the authority and word of God, Herbert W. Armstrong had no authority to preach, baptize, or ordain. Neither do the guys who preach today. None of them has any authority to be a minister! Herbert W. Armstrong was the churches foundation. That foundation has crumbled under the strain of this biblical test.

Let me remind the reader what the prophets of old would say about Herbert:

Jer 5:31 “The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it this way.

Mat 23:27  “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.”

Herbert Armstrong was indeed human. He proved by his actions that he had no right to stand in-between any person and God. The same can be said about those who cover up his sins so that they can continue to fleece the sheep.

Defending the Indefensible.

COGwriter Bob Thiel runs to Armstrong’s defense writing:

“What is overwhelming is that there is no proof, yet the accusers, who have no real direct information, continue perpetuating this charade.”

Not true. Since the 1990’s the Painful Truth has had newspaper clippings online that mention Herbert Armstrong and incest in the same sentence. During the course of his divorce HWA’s lawyers tried to eliminate evidence of a “sexual nature” but Ramona’s attorneys said it was crucial since HWA was accusing her of a breach of love and fidelity.

So if there is no evidence of incest as Bob Thiel states, why during the divorce proceedings was it mentioned that the Armstrong’s reached an “understanding” about HWA’s “prior incestuous conduct with his daughter for many years?”

The truth is, that in a criminal court of law Herbert W. Armstrong would have been found GUILTY of these incest allegations. The answer as to why they didn’t pursue charges against Herbert for incest or Ramona for theft is answered in the article itself. “That a trial would be stressful to Mr. Armstrong and might be very injurious to his health.”

Without even mentioning the Lochner tapes, or Robinson’s book “Herbert Armstrong’s Tangled Web” the newspaper article stands as dire testimonial evidence that there was indeed incest going on at one time in the Armstrong family. So when we read:

“I investigated four allegations related to this specific accusation and concluded that unless certain alleged audiotapes (the “Lochner tapes”, where Herbert W. Armstrong allegedly confesses to this) actually surfaced, the accusations are not provable and aspects of the accusations are indeed disprovable.”
Bob Thiel

know that Bob Thiel didn’t look that hard at the evidence. As the newspaper shows, the incest was part of the legal proceedings in the Armstrong’s divorce. It is part of a LEGAL document.

If we lived in a world of true justice, HWA would have stood trial for this crime regardless of his health. The verdict would have been GUILTY!

31 Replies to ““Apostolic Incest””

  1. It would have been amusing to have captured a video of Vern Mattson confronting his father-in-law waving a gun about having incest with Dorothy.

    As for Robert (Booby) Thiel, with his book out this week on Obama, even the Living Church of God’s Roderick Meredith seems to want to put some distance between him and the LCG, even though Thielogical Boob seems to be THE authority of everything Church of Godish with his silly blog that libels the Church of God Seventh Day and Baron Karl zu Guttenberg more or less opposite but equally. He’s a nutjob arrogant narcissist with a PhD who seems to have taken an entitlement to himself to declare what is and is not truth. What he says is rubbish.

    Yes, and if Herbert W(olf) Armstrong had been tried and convicted to be sent to prison for incest in the 1930s as he should have been, it seems clear enough what would have happened to him: Convicts have their own hierarchy of justice and child molesters are on the bottom with those who commit incest even more so. It seems clear that today there would be no 700+ protesting harlot daughters borne of an incestuous contemptible arrogant manic sociopath. There would have been no Worldwide Church of God. British Israelism would have remained a curious artifact of a crazy mad man committed to an insane asylum.

    There would have been no GTA, no Roderick Meredith, no David Pack, no Dr. Hoeh, no Dennis Luker, no Gerald Flurry, no John Rittenbaugh, no Ronald Weinland and especially, no Dr. Robert Thiel. There would never have been those 209 false prophecies. There would have been no Worldwide Church of God. No Plain Truth; no Good News; no Tomorrow’s World; no World Tomorrow; no GCI. Hardly anyone would have known Stanley Rader, let alone Mike Wallace.

    And the world would be a marginally more peaceful sane place to live.

    But we would have missed all the fun.

  2. I think this issue is simply too mind boggling for stalwart Armstrongites to even consider, let alone believe and react accordingly. The greater majority chalks it all up as persecution, and considers Satan to be the author.

    The period of incest coincides with the time period when Herbert alleges that God was revealing to him the restored truths, which are the backbone of Armstrongism. Anyone who reads the Bible knows that the God described in its pages did not work directly through individuals involved in ongoing and systemic sin. Sin whores up the spiritual channel, so to speak. God does convert evil, kind of like spiritual karate, and turns it against itself, ultimately producing good, but in every case of perennial sin in the Bible, it had to be cleared up and corrected before God worked with and through different individuals as His spokespersons. Even the most diehard Armstrongite would recognize that basic truth, which is why there is such a wall of denial. To acknowledge ten years of this type of sin, they’d have to question and ultimately reject the so-called restored truths.

    BTW, incest is an example of “mala in se”, an act considered so totally evil by all society, that a perpetrator is automatically reduced to non-person status, and anything that person had to say, or any good activities throughout his or her life are totally invalidated.

    BB

  3. Herbeert W. Armstrong was a perverted and totally evil con man. The world contains far too many of them. His con did provide me with a college education, but that is one of the few things I can feel gratitude for, and that was unltimately for his benefit, not really anything magnanimous toward me or anyone else. He had to have duplicitous clones to build his empire, and we fit the bill.

    He would mercilessly turn on you in a heartbeat and often did to many. It has been said that his pathway was strewn with the wrecked lives of men who had served him well, and I can attest to the veracity of that statement. I recount in my book how he turned on and tried to destroy Bill Glover. That wasn’t the only time.

    Narcissistic psycopaths will always be with us, it seems. And, anybody who consoles themselves with the thought that there is a god who gives a damn is ignorant or blind to history.

  4. Why would the Armstrong crowd care about incest? Incest to them is nothing to sneeze about. It is normal to them. They approve of it and by endorsing the old pervert they endorse his ways. All of them.

    Moms and dads, don’t forget to have the elders of the church babysit your kids. They might not be the same ever again but heck, you need a break!

    Soon the feast of booze will be upon us. The members of the so called churches will imitate Herbert and drink themselves silly. Those who run the hotels will be busy cleaning out the empty bottles and cans. Maids and janitors will be busy indeed. Cleaning up puke, spilled drinks off carpets, but hopefully they can make a little more money doing their mundane jobs and return these bottles and cans for the deposit.

    The feast is a bore, the sermons painfully repetitive. The fun starts at family day where your children can mix with a selection of ministerial brats and the local pervert can have his way when your not looking. Again, your children may not be the same, but it is your church. You own your decisions lock, stock and barrel.

  5. Well, Jon, they did teach us that all sins were more or less equal in that they were all sin, and all killed Jesus Christ. Most people, religious or otherwise, recognize the implications and effects of various sins as they impact others, or society at large. But, WCG seemed to feel that sabbath breaking, and incest or murder were all pretty much equal. Skewed theology there.

    The word “Armstrongism” embodies many things. One of the most damaging is man worship. HWA did many, many things that were just flat wrong. His followers use him as a personal standard. IOW, a sin was not a sin if it was something HWA did. These folks never recognize such things, and never repent or try to improve upon them, because it was stuff their “apostle” did, and they see him as their perfect standard. It’s why Ron Weinland and his followers have no problem with Ron’s behavior regarding his taxes, just to cite one example. It’s why people who preach the end is right around the corner have no problem fleecing their people for extra moneys to construct permanent auditoriums and campusses.

    BB

  6. Allen writes:

    “Narcissistic psycopaths will always be with us, it seems. And, anybody who consoles themselves with the thought that there is a god who gives a damn is ignorant or blind to history.”

    A flawed concept. We were plainly warned. Not only were we told of deceivers and blindness, we have the plain account of Jesus himself in Matthew 24:23. Even assuming there was never a Jesus to say it, it still re mains a logically true statement. Therefore, if we were suckered by so meone’s false representation of the Bible, it was because we didn’t read and think about it for ourselves.

  7. Ralph,

    The same can be said for politicians. They falsely represent the American people. They are all sorry sacks of shit working for themselves within the banking community. Lets see if Romney is for the people or the banks.

  8. James, you make a solid point. Whether you refer to church or state, government or religion, you’re talking about two collective systems organized by the same human brain. They’re basically interchangeable. The only reason why we don’t now have over 38,000 different versions of government in this country is that government can stick a gun in your ear, but it cannot support religion overtly. The mess that exists today exists because the mass of people either refuse to think if they can, or they simply don’t know how to think(thanks to our public schools). As Douglas points out, this is good breeding ground for psychopaths.

  9. Mike Lofgren has just come out with a book called “The Party is Over.”
    Neither political party is doing a good job of representing constituents today. I confess to not having read the book yet, but I did see an interview on Tavis Smiley’s program, and it seems like Lofgren does have his finger on the pulse of American politics.

    BB

  10. Libertarians have maintained for years tht it’s the “republicrats” or the “demopublicans”. There’s no real difference. This awareness is seeping slowly into mainstream America.

    If you take the view of the atheist, that there is no God and reject all religions, you’re merely rejecting the organizations created by men that supposedly represent God. If you claim that government can somehow replace religion and provide for the good of the people, you’ve merely taken the “gun” from “God’s” hand and placed it in the hands of government. It boils down to a simple moral issue: at what point does it cease to be theft if “you” take money from “me”? With government, at what number does it become moral to take money or property from those that work for it? 10, 100, 1000, 1,000,000? If you CAN corectly show a number where a group of people can take from other people without it being theft, then most people will choose to live in groups just under that number. A variation of this applies to replgion. If “God” says one person may rightly take property from another, how do we know that God actually approves it? We don’t. AND we don’t know if there are any who actually represent God for that purpose. The goal of both church and state, therefore is to convince you that what you earn cannot all be yours. It’s all a Ponzi scheme.

  11. My above statements refer to the “incestuous rape” article in the sense that, once a sufficient mass of people are convinced that what they earn and own isn’t theirs, it becomes easier to convince more and more people that they are born to a “duty” to give what those in power desire, and the minority that disagrees will tend to go along. That is why the rape of a woman is so devastating, from my male perspective, because women are so deeply sensistive to social responsibility and the family group. My great grandmother helped raise me, and she was born just after the Civil War. She came from a time when woemn were viewed as the guardians of moral virtue. There were limits that men were bound to respect and honor. The western author Louis Lamour writes of women who travelled across the frontier with groups of men, having no fear from sexual attack, because even a horse thief looked down on a rapist. The growtrh of both church and state in recent years is a form of collective rape, the breaking down of almost all individual barriers.

  12. Ralph,

    Interesting as to politics. Your point is well made. The same mind as the cultist is at work as in politics.

    For the armstrongites to just pooh, pooh away the proof that HWA was a child molester and continue to trust & believe in this man of a “lesser moral character”, is to do the same as many folks do when it comes to choosing a political candidate.

    When “they” (politicians) are all the same sorry sacks of shit and to accept these prostitutes and the words that flow so elegantly from their mouths, is to fall into the same trap that so many of us have been caught in before regarding the past. You see, many of those former worshipers of HWA, Flurry, Spanky, etc… leave a fundamentalist cult, they embrace a new god. The government! What they fail to realize that these whores are the same as those they left. They change one “type” of whore for another. The only difference is in the job description!

    My understanding is to look at the moral character of a man in making a choice as to a believable candidate. For example, when I see a COG leader (a poor choice of words actually) make a claim of divine inspiration I look at his “fruits.” His claim is bullshit until I can investigate him personally and his position. For example:

    When I hear that Herbert Armstrong “appointed, anointed, baptized, or castigated” the latest rogue apostle, those who claim to “carry on the mantle” of HWA, I must ask the question, WHO WAS HERBERT W. ARMSTRONG? The answer is in the court documents. Documents that tell a tale of persistent child molestation within his family for over a decade.

    A mans character speaks volumes about the man. As it stands, HWA had no authority to teach, to anoint, or appoint any man to do a work of God. He could not have unless god appoints and anoints and approves of child molestation.

  13. James writes:

    “When “they” (politicians) are all the same sorry sacks of shit and to accept these prostitutes and the words that flow so elegantly from their mouths, is to fall into the same trap that so many of us have been caught in before regarding the past. You see, many of those former worshipers of HWA, Flurry, Spanky, etc… leave a fundamentalist cult, they embrace a new god. The government! What they fail to realize that these whores are the same as those they left. They change one “type” of whore for another. The only difference is in the job description!”

    There you go. It’s all a matter of whoredom in some form. Lawyers are law whores, religious leaders are religious whores. Politicians are political whores.

  14. The thought just occurred to me that, in spite of what he did, HWA would probably have been horrified if Dorothy had married an African American (or other “non-Israelite”)

    BB

  15. Hello James.

    Just a couple of points about the scriptures you quoted.

    1 Mat 23:27 Considering that the author of the Gospel of Matthew portrays the Pharisees and the Jewish leadership as hypocrites, a misrepresentation of the Pharisees of Jesus day, (and reflects the authors own opposition from various Jewish leadership which affects His view of them), quoting an author that makes things up to make others look bad would be a bad example of what prophets of old would think about HWA.

    2 1 Tim 3:2-12 Yes HWA would not qualify to be a bishop according to this scripture but considering that this author is pretending to be Paul in order for their teaching on qualifications for leadership in the Church (which represents how the church was organised in the second century) to be more authoritative, it would be hard to hold up the author as an authority on the subject because they have to lie and pretend to be someone who they are not, to get their points across

    “The bible doesn’t spare its hero’s faults from its readers. You get to see what their strengths and faults were.
    The David Defense.
    Unlike Herbert W. Armstrong, David never set himself up as a spiritual leader who had the authority from God to control every aspect of peoples’ lives. David knew that he was not allowed to build the temple because he had blood on his hands. Consider that David’s sins were the spur of the moment type, whereas Herbert W. Armstrong’s incest lasted for 10 years. There is no record of his repentance. No apology, no admission to guilt, no remorse for not only this above mentioned crime, but for ANY mistake he ever made”

    Just to address some of the things said above. Even though the books of the Hebrew Bible do not spare the faults of the characters in it, some of the faults were not considered faults to the authors of books or by the culture in which the books were written. Things like Lot offering the men of Sodom and Gomorrah His daughters to rape and do with as they pleased (cf the account in Judges 19:24-25), a virgin who gets raped has to marry their rapist (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), Men allowed to marry captive women whose father and mother the Men had killed (Deut 21:10-14) or that a woman who grabs a man’s genitals will have to have her hand cut off and be shown no pity (Duet 25:11-12), which were all consider morally ok in the culture in which Genesis and Deuteronomy were written, shows that it is not the best book to be comparing to modern allegations of incest, as it has numerous wrong moral teachings in it that modern society has rightfully rejected.

    “Not true. Since the 1990?s the Painful Truth has had newspaper clippings online that mention Herbert Armstrong and incest in the same sentence. During the course of his divorce HWA’s lawyers tried to eliminate evidence of a “sexual nature” but Ramona’s attorneys said it was crucial since HWA was accusing her of a breach of love and fidelity.
    So if there is no evidence of incest as Bob Thiel states, why during the divorce proceedings was it mentioned that the Armstrong’s reached an “understanding” about HWA’s “prior incestuous conduct with his daughter for many years?”

    Now in relation to the above there is a difference between proof and evidence. The newspaper clippings are not proof the allegations of incest but could be taken as evidence for the allegations. If we had the court documents that mention the claims then we would know that pacifically was claimed and what the evidence for the claims was. This would give us much more substantially evidence for the allegations being true. But we do not have the court documents.

    “The truth is, that in a criminal court of law Herbert W. Armstrong would have been found GUILTY of these incest allegations. The answer as to why they didn’t pursue charges against Herbert for incest or Ramona for theft is answered in the article itself. “That a trial would be stressful to Mr. Armstrong and might be very injurious to his health.”

    I don’t see how the above is true unless the courts system in the US have change and now allow people to be found guilty of a crime from newspaper articles (which many just repeat the same story). Also it was not stated in the articles that charges were not laid against HWA for incest because it was stressful him and his health. What is said is that Ramona was indicted by a superior court grand jury in the disappearance of church owned gold flatware, which the church agreed to waive its complaint about, but Kenneth Peasley would not agree to drop the charges (Tri City Herald –May 11, 1984).

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=MFshAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8oUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1416,3237860&hl=en

    It seems to get Peasley to drop the charges HWA lawyer provided an affidavit that stated that a trial would be stressful to HWA health and that restitution had been made for the gold flatware.

    “Without even mentioning the Lochner tapes, or Robinson’s book “Herbert Armstrong’s Tangled Web” the newspaper article stands as dire testimonial evidence that there was indeed incest going on at one time in the Armstrong family. So when we read:”

    The news paper articles are the only actually evidence that the shows that the allegations might be true. The two things you have above is non-existent tapes that no one has and a book by Robinsons that have claims made in it but no evidence is provided that substantiates the claims. So while the allegations about HWA and incest might be true, the evidence we have for the claim is slim and it is not something that is going to get a guilty verdict in court going by the evidence that is being present for the claims being true.

  16. Disagree William with your presumptions. Armstrong would have been convicted as to the charge(s) of incest.

    You wrote:
    “I don’t see how the above is true unless the courts system in the US have change and now allow people to be found guilty of a crime from newspaper articles”

    In the process of legal discovery civil actions can lead to criminal actions by the State and Vice Versa. Plain and simple. Seeing how the Armstrong’s reached an agreement as to the “incest” issue this agreement being part of the divorce proceedings, it stands to follow that this would be not a gentleman’s agreement but a legal agreement drawn up by lawyers. This agreement led to the charges being dropped by HWA’s lawyers. Herbert never made agreements as important as this based on honor. His freedom was at stake. His wife would have been free to testify against him after the divorce. An agreement HAD to be made if he was to retain that freedom.

    You wrote:

    “The news paper articles are the only actually evidence that the shows that the allegations might be true. The two things you have above is non-existent tapes that no one has and a book by Robinsons that have claims made in it but no evidence is provided that substantiates the claims.”

    I never raised the Lockner tapes as evidence in the article. I did not comment on them. As for the author of “Herbert Armstrong’s Tangled Web” I have the following comment:

    Why would a man risk his financial future to publish a book that HWA and his lawyers tried to endlessly suppress? And why did they want this book suppressed? Was he, Robinson a fool? Crazy? Or did he decide to expose Herbert and all his hypocrisy in hand?

    As to the scriptures quoted, your views seem to be in conflict with bible scholars of old and those of the modern age.

    Thanks for the comment “William.”

    1. “In the process of legal discovery civil actions can lead to criminal actions by the State and Vice Versa. Plain and simple. Seeing how the Armstrong’s reached an agreement as to the “incest” issue this agreement being part of the divorce proceedings, it stands to follow that this would be not a gentleman’s agreement but a legal agreement drawn up by lawyers.”

      But the article does not say they reached an agreement about the incest issue and nor was it a legal agreement. In the article I linked to it says “Mrs. Armstrong’s lawyer said “In 1977 because of medication that Mr. Armstrong was taking, he became impotent. There were conversations with Mrs Armstrong regarding his incestuous conduct with His daughter.” And as the article you linked to says “Mrs. Armstrong lawyer said the testimony would explain an understanding the couple reached about Armstrong’s prior incestuous conduct with his daughter for many years”. So what was said in the article is that Mrs Armstrong’s lawyers said that she and HWA had conversations and/or an understanding a regarding HWA and his incestuous conduct with His daughter, which were conversations in their marriage. There is nothing said about any legal agreement the armstrongs had draw up about the incest issue.

      “This agreement led to the charges being dropped by HWA’s lawyers. Herbert never made agreements as important as this based on honor. His freedom was at stake. His wife would have been free to testify against him after the divorce. An agreement HAD to be made if he was to retain that freedom.”

      But this again is not what is said in the article. As I wrote before what is said is that Ramona was indicted by a superior court grand jury in the disappearance of church owned gold flatware, which the church agreed to waive its complaint about, but Kenneth Peasley would not agree to drop the charges (Tri City Herald –May 11, 1984). It seems to get Peasley to drop the charges HWA lawyer provided an affidavit that stated that a trial would be stressful to HWA health and that restitution had been made for the gold flatware. There is nothing in the article that says that the charges were dropped because there was a “legal agreement” between the armstrongs about the incest issue. So like I said before while the newspaper articles show that that the allegations about incest might be true, the evidence is slim and it is not something that is going to get a guilty verdict in court by the evidence that is being present for the claim being true.

      “I never raised the Lockner tapes as evidence in the article. I did not comment on them.

      In to what I was replying you said this

      “Without even mentioning the Lochner tapes, or Robinson’s book “Herbert Armstrong’s Tangled Web” the newspaper article stands as dire testimonial evidence that there was indeed incest going on at one time in the Armstrong family”

      Unless you meant to say that something like this “Without even mentioning the Lochner tapes (which I don’t accept as evidence) or Robinson’s book “Herbert Armstrong’s Tangled Web”(which I do accept as evidence) the newspaper article stands as dire testimonial evidence that there was indeed incest going on at one time in the Armstrong family” I don’t see how it did not mean that you accept both as providing some evidence that substantiates the claim since you mention both of them and you accept Robinson’s book as evidence. Of cause I could be wrong and in the that case I think the wording of the post needs to be reworded so it does not get misunderstood that way.

      As for the author of “Herbert Armstrong’s Tangled Web” I have the following comment: Why would a man risk his financial future to publish a book that HWA and his lawyers tried to endlessly suppress? And why did they want this book suppressed? Was he, Robinson a fool? Crazy? Or did he decide to expose Herbert and all his hypocrisy in hand?”

      This does not seem to address the issue I pointed out which was the in Robinson’s book he provides no evidence that substantiates the claim he makes. If he had gone to the Police and provided a statement about the claim and providing how he knows about it (persons who told him, times, date etc) then we would have something more substantial to go on as it would of been an official police statement. But Robinson did not do that. Instead he wrote a book which has a lot of claims in it but nothing that could substantiates them.

      “As to the scriptures quoted, your views seem to be in conflict with bible scholars of old and those of the modern age.”

      Could you please tell me who these present day scholars are and what works they have written on the subject that deal with the scriptures I quoted. The only scholars who would dispute what I wrote would be Christian scholars whose belief in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible (as well as their faith traditions) would affect how they see the issues. On the other hand critical scholarship (which includes scholars that are Christians, atheist, agnostics, and other faith traditions) would not dispute what I wrote about the scriptures I quoted as it is their conclusions I was summarising. Here is works by scholars that actually deal with these issues.

      1 In relation to how Matthew portrays the Pharisees and the Jewish leaders (and how Christian scholars have many times misrepresented the Jewish leaders of Jesus days) see E.P. Sanders: Paul and Palestinian Judaism; Jesus and Judaism; Judaism: Practice and Belief; Studying the Synoptic Gospels; The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition and The Historical Figure of Jesus. Sanders works provided a good introduction to the topic.

      2 It is the consensus of critical scholar that the Pastoral epistles are pseudepigraphical letters. See Bart Ehrman “The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Chapter 25 In the Wake of the Apostle: The Deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles); Bart Ehrman Forged: Writing in the Name of God, W.G. Kummel: Introduction to the New Testament (trans H.C. Kee; Nashville: Abingdon 1975), F. Young: The Theology of the Pastoral Epistles, Stephen Finlan: The Apostle Paul and the Pauline Tradition and P.N. Harrison The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles available online here

      http://archive.org/details/problemofpastora00harruoft

      3 In relation to the scriptures I quoted from Genesis and Deuteronomy see Thom Stark “Is God a Moral Compromiser?” also online at

      http://thomstark.net/copan/stark_copan-review.pdf

  17. And here we are.

    The testimony was given.

    The divorce happened.

    And we have the letter from Jack Kessler — rather hard to ignore or refute.

    The facts stand.

    Just remember that when you keep the Day of Atonement that Herbert Armstrong didn’t: He had a donut and a cup of coffee “to keep his strength up”. His “tithe” didn’t add up to 10%. He let his son rape AC Coeds. He was a false prophet.

    He hardly needs defending.

    He isn’t worth it.

  18. Considering that the author of the Gospel of Matthew portrays the Pharisees and the Jewish leadership as hypocrites, a misrepresentation of the Pharisees of Jesus day

    Yet another unsupportable statement from someone disingenuous with the suspicious point of view: Demanding proof and hoping we will all accept a lot less.

    Make statements like the above about the Gospels and you instantly lose the believers and even the Armstrongists: There’s nothing like impeaching your own witness in and attempt to destroy credibility in a misdirection.

    Poorly played.

  19. Hello Douglas

    Responding to your two posts you said

    You said

    “And here we are.
    The testimony was given.”

    But testimony was not given. As the article says “ In the divorce proceedings, Armstrong’s lawyers sought to limit evidence of a sexual nature but his wife’s attorneys said it was critical since the church leader alleged that Mrs. Armstrong had breached an agreement of love and fidelity. Lawrence Deckter Mrs. Lawyer said the testimony would explain an “understanding” the couple reached about Armstrong’s “prior incestuous conduct with his daughter for many years”

    So the article says that HWA lawyers did not want the evidence that dealt with a sexual nature to be given but Ramona’s lawyers that such evidence was critical because there was allegations he committed infidelity and that the testimony would explain and understanding and/or conversations that couple had about HWA’s incestuous conduct with his daughter. We are never told that the testimony was ever given so unless people actually have the court documents and proceedings no one can say that the testimony was given.

    “And we have the letter from Jack Kessler — rather hard to ignore or refute”

    Here is what is said in the letter. “Although others, such as Dave Robinson and Floyd Lochner, apparently thought it might work to their advantage to report Mr. Armstrong’s admission (which he’s made to several) that he had engaged repeatedly in incestuous intercourse with his daughter during the first 10 years of his ministry”. So the co called evidence in this letter is mention Dave Robinson, who wrote a book and claimed HWA told him (not evidence) and mentioning that HWA has told several people, who are not named or when they were told (times, dates etc). That is not evidence but claims which do have nothing provided that substantiates.

    “The facts stand”

    Yes they do and the facts would be that while the allegations about insect might be true the only real evidence for the claim is the newspaper articles because everything else just has claims being made and nothing is provided or was done that substantiates.

    “Just remember that when you keep the Day of Atonement that Herbert Armstrong didn’t: He had a donut and a cup of coffee “to keep his strength up”. His “tithe” didn’t add up to 10%. He let his son rape AC Coeds. He was a false prophet.”

    Seeing as I am an agnostic and have never been a part of HWA church I don’t see why I would be keeping the Day of Atonement. Did you read all that I wrote or did you just skim it? But yes HWA was a false Apostle/Prophet.

    “He hardly needs defending.
    He isn’t worth it.”

    I am simply pointing out how people are not basing their claims on evidence.

    Yet another unsupportable statement from someone disingenuous with the suspicious point of view: Demanding proof and hoping we will all accept a lot less.”

    What I did was simply say what any critical scholar would say about Gospel of Matthew (which was not written by Matthew) and it portrayal of the Pharisees. But if you want to check it out yourself then please do. Here is a good place to start.

    Bart Ehrman “The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings

    E.P. Sanders: Paul and Palestinian Judaism; Jesus and Judaism; Judaism: Practice and Belief; Studying the Synoptic Gospels; The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition and The Historical Figure of Jesus.
    Make statements like the above about the Gospels and you instantly lose the believers and even the Armstrongists: There’s nothing like impeaching your own witness in and attempt to destroy credibility in a misdirection.
    Poorly played.”

    No, I lose fundamentalist who take a naïve and historical wrong view about the Gospels. Everything I said was claimed is supported by critical scholarship (which includes scholars who are Christian).

  20. The facts still stand.

    The divorce occurred.

    Assuredly, the testimony was given or there would not have been the divorce.

    Seeing as I am an agnostic and have never been a part of HWA church

    Clearly someone who doesn’t know the issues.

  21. “The facts still stand.”

    This is just a non-response. You have address nothing I have said about what the article says and how it did not say what you claimed. You have not addressed what I said about the Jack Kessler letter. And finally you have not addressed the books I gave, written by scholars who unlike you are trained in ancient languages, the culture of the time of the NT, the primary and secondary literature for the NT and Judaism and whose views agree and make up the consensus of critical scholarship. This is no better than a follower of HWA, when pointed out how his beliefs conflict with science, the books in the Bible, scholarship, putting blinders on and not addressing anything and going on with what he believes.

    “The divorce occurred.
    Assuredly, the testimony was given or there would not have been the divorce.”

    Expect nowhere in the newspaper articles or anywhere else was it ever claimed that the reason for the divorce was because of the incest issue for that that the aromstrongs were only given a divorce of some testimony about incest. This again is reading something into the article and not addressing the real issue of that if you want to claim that testimony did occurred you need the court documents and proceedings to prvoe it.

    “Seeing as I am an agnostic and have never been a part of HWA church
    Clearly someone who doesn’t know the issues”

    What issues? The issue about the incest allegations? Because if so then it appears that I know a fair bit about it as I am the one who has to keep pointing out what the articles says and that you are reading things into them. Of cause you maybe referring to the issue of the Gospel of Matthew and how it portrays the Pharisees, which again I know a fair bit about as I have read all the publications that I listed for you to read and more that deals with this subject. So what evidence do you have Douglas that shows what you claimed about me above is true? Because it seems you just keep disagreeing with me without actually addressing anything I have said.

  22. Hey fool William, what part don’t u understand? “So the article says that HWA lawyers did not want the evidence that dealt with a sexual nature to be given but Ramona’s lawyers that such evidence was critical because there was allegations he committed infidelity and that the testimony would explain and understanding and/or conversations that couple had about HWA’s incestuous conduct with his daughter.”

    Infidelity does not mean marriage currently even thou the hwa could have cheated on Ramona. Infidelity is also “out of marriage”. Fucking someone your not married to even if your not married at all. It don’t matter if your married or not, fucking outside of marriage is infidelity/adultery. Example, infidelity may arise if a partner in a relationship acts outside of the understood boundaries of that relationship and it varies between and within cultures.

    Circumstantial evidence has convicted people I know who swore they were innocent. The man fucked his daughter and you make a flimsy case to protect him. You are part of those churches. You are. Don’t deny it.

  23. I don’t k now about the sexual charges against HWA, but I have read Ehrman’s works and have two books by him, as well as a book written by Talmudist scholar Hyam Maccoby. The Pharisees’ flaw was their claim as legal representati ves over the people. However accurate their portrayal, they claimed powers they never had, even though such authority was acknowled by Jesus in Matthew 23. Key in that was Matthew 23:13 , shutting up the kingdom of God to the people, as well as Luke 11:52. Further statements in Matthew 24:23 demonstrate the warning against ANY religious leader coming in the name of “Christ’ or messiah. Don’t believe any of them. One could simple deny the existence of Jesus altogether and the statement would still be true.

  24. The WCG and Herbert Armstrong sued anyone and everyone who ever posed any kind of threat (real or imagined) to the organization or to Herbert, just like the Scientologists do today. The mere fact the WCG and Armstrong never sued the reporter and newspaper involved in this story is ample circumstantial evidence of his guilt.

    Also, never once did Dorothy go on record to defend her dad against the incest charges. Again I consider this more than telling.

  25. Thanks for that Dan I was waiting for someone to point that out. This very thing has been raised time and again. In order for Herbert to retain his standard of living, he would file lawsuits to squelch those who posed a threat to his fraudulent institution.

    I did not mention some of the other things that point to his guilt. Like what GTA said about the incest. GTA never protested or denied Robinson’s story. A least not as a man who’s father has been accused of such a hideous crime would protest.

  26. I was a member of this horrific organization for years and years. I was kicked out because … well… who cares! (I started as a woman to dare to think for myself!!!! – and EXPRESS it!! (oh shame on me) I was told I was a “terrific and loyal christian girl” in one breath… then I was (at the time I was kicked out… “deeply unconverted”. I suffered for years and years and years mental torment. No friends… no one cared about me except my children and their dad. I made a lot of horrible mistakes because of their judgement… not God’s (which I am slowly starting to see NOW)… I was 30 when I left… had 2 babies… 2 &4 when I “quit”. I remember telling the asshole of a minister at the time … when he told me I was disfellowshipped… I said …” nope… frig you… I quit… now get out of my house”. Did he leave? NOPE. He sat in the rocking chair that I rocked my youngest in and never lifted his pathetic ass off of the chair until he was damned good and ready (arrogance… the arrogance of the whole outfit). I am 57 now… I have suffered from alcoholism etc etc… my children are grown and fine, wonderful human beings
    I feel awful that it broke up my family (yes… I made mistakes that attributed to the break up as well)… but to this DAY we are all still FAMILY… maybe NOT together in the traditional sense… but very loyal to all concerned.
    WE are all human… and we all make mistakes… I clearly remember how God felt about David… “a man after his own heart”. How beautiful!… David never set himself up as a prophet that could control people. He was HUMAN and admitted his mistakes. He is an example I guess, of humility for all of us to follow… God Loves sacrifice and a broken heart. If I felt Jesus/God … could be like HWA… I would have killed myself by now I am sure. I don’t know what I believe at this point… I still struggle… but I know that if God does exist… He is NOTHING like HWA AND HIS ASSOCIATES. I see not point in being bitter and I was for a very long time… in some ways I guess I still am …esp. when some of the old associates try to be-friend me on social networks like fb… I can’t even go there with them. I don’t believe God would ever have allowed this stupid church to continue… It was all about money and power. If there is a God -hwa will answer to Him. I would love to connect with former members… in a spirit of recovery … not bitterness. I do understand the need to vent… oh my… do I ever. I am grateful for this site… it has helped me over the years a LOT. Take care all. I still have many issues … and I feel everyone’s pain like you would not believe. Thank you for listening. Peace to all of us :)… Cheryl (still broken but in a state of learning how to forgive… not not easy at all ) take care 🙂

  27. There are still those who insist, in spite of all the facts out there, that the incest never happened.

    We know what comes next: There’s reason to believe that there was ever a Holocaust — can’t prove it; there’s no evidence!

    Thus is the games playing of psychopaths — all designed to wreck credibility to get people to wallow in confusion as the first act in the implementation of their meaningless little drama.

    Meanwhile, the excruciating pain lingers on in the victims.

  28. Thanks for posting Cheryl.

    The pain may persist but hope is on the horizon. Hope that you and I along with thousands of others former members of that horrific cult, can talk and work out the problems that still plaque us. Those thoughts that remind us of the bad old days, or when we might hear a certain term used, a holy day mentioned, whatever it might be we can get by it by supporting each other.

    If you ever need to talk, write me here at the Painful Truth.
    http://www.hwarmstrong.com/email-notice.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
21 + 30 =


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.