July 31, 2021. The insolent apostle

HWA-GCGE-replicaJuly 31, 2021 marks the 129th birthday of HWA. Yes, we know those in the most hard-line COGs donā€™t celebrate birthdays, and HWA is the ubiquitous exception to all the rules. Iā€™ll always remember how HWA fondly recalled how Haile Selassie, though his country was experiencing a disastrous famine, and a governmental upheaval that shortly led to his death, sent him a birthday telegram. So, in anticipation of Bob Thielā€™s customary birthday post, and likely use of the ā€œSacred Treasureā€ photo, we offer this rare bit of anecdotal history:

In the back of one of the Hitler Diaries was a scribbled note, in which the name ā€œHerr H.W. Armstrongā€ was conspicuous. Now, like Rick (in Casablanca) my German is a bit rusty, but here goes:

ā€œTo be awarded to Herr H.W. Armstrong of the USA, the Grand Cross of the German Eagle. Herr Armstrong is to be honored for his theories of racial purity, forced segregation, propaganda extolling German military superiority, the coming of the glorious Millennial Reich, and for demoralizing of the American people in their misguided attempts to defeat the victorious German army.”

The story was that following the ā€œdiscoveryā€ of the Hitler Diaries, one of Gene Hogbergā€™s contacts in West Germany sent him a copy of the note, so he and Herman Hoeh did some research and got a replica of the award medal. They presented it to HWA with a suitable cover story, and naturally a photo of him sporting his fake medal was in order. Word has it that the copy of the photo was discovered after HWAā€™s demise, being used as a bookmark in his annotated copy of Mein Kampf.

Of course the above story is fictitious, but since April Fools Day may have come out of paganism, July 31 is as good day as any for a cruel joke.


For those various Armstrong factions, the weapon of choice is ridiculing the accomplishments of generations of great men and women.

As evidence, consider that these cults are committed to the proposition that all Herbies views were correct, self-evident, and based on fact and reason, while other peopleā€™s positions are not just wrong but illegitimate, ideological, and unworthy of serious consideration.

If you were to get a second opinion from someone whoā€™s not a member of one of the various loony-bin crews, they would of course tell you that Ā that heā€™s a secular whore masquerading as a man of God whose every pronouncement was a gospel truth that only the sinful or the sinister would question.

Iā€™m by no means the first person to notice that Herbert was a militantly unfriendly proletariat that abandoned every ethical principle that governs responsible human activity. Many others are made note of his narcissistic tendencies.Ā  Herbert behaved like this is his world and weā€™re all just living in it.

Let me end by observing that the proverbs of Theognis, like those of Solomon, are observations on human nature, ordinary life, and civil society, with moral reflections on the facts. I quote him as a witness of the fact that Herbert and company were and are the type of person(s) who will trump up any lie for the occasion, and the more of a thumper it is, the better they likes it.

One-on-one with Atonement

Blast from the pastā€¦.

Another Day of Atonement has now gone. This brought back memoriesā€¦ Atonement spelled ā€œAt-One-Mentā€ (like those little ā€œproofsā€ HWA used that only worked in English), a slightly shorter afternoon service, the guy who says itā€™s his treat for after-service refreshments, a sermon about Satan, the minister shows his empty glass (normally filled with water) and his remarks about how weā€™re all thinking of a nice steak (when weā€™re really thinking of a beer) and the New Yearā€™s Eve type countdown until sunset.

Behind this was another example of HWAā€™s flawed theology. The Day of Atonement (in the Hebrew, Yom HaKippurim) was not all about sticking it to Satan. It had to do with the annual atonement of the Temple, the Priesthood, and the Congregation of Israel. And as I have noted a few times before, COG theology is blissfully ignorant of the Levitical Priesthood and the Tabernacle/Temple system. Either the Portland Public Library didnā€™t have tomes like Eddersheimā€™s works on the Temple and First Century Palestine (written way before 1927) or HWA didnā€™t find anything he could use in them.

As I understand HWA theology (occasionally clarified by some convoluted explanations from Dr T) the Levitical system was a temporary addition (Plan C?) although it will be reinstituted in the Millenium (ā€œfor a short timeā€). The establishment of the Aaronic priesthoodĀ foreverĀ depends entirely onĀ foreverĀ not really meaning, uh, forever. So, I understand, this misunderstanding allows COGs to dispense with ā€œLeviticalā€ laws at their discretion. In fact, CG7 apparently used that reason to dispense with the Holy Days (except Passover) ā€“ because they were described in Leviticus. But all COGs, and almost all churches, keep tithing (first tithe), which was specifically for the Levites.

But now, coming soon, another feast, and as always, it will beĀ The Best Feast Ever!


Article by Hoss

What is a ___________? ___________ is not in the Bible!

hossSometimes weā€™re warned about certain practices simply because they werenā€™t mentioned in the Bible. Here is an extract from a recently posted concern about a Roman Catholic priest wearing a particular garment called a dalmatic:

  1. The dalmatic was not from the Bible.
  2. The dalmatic was not an original garment that deacons wore.
  3. The source of the dalmatic came from worldly society.
  4. People had concerns about the dalmatic because it was considered to be effeminate.
  5. The dalmatic became associated with imperial politicians, including emperors.
  6. Because of its ties to politics, it was adopted by pontiffs and bishops.
  7. During the time of Emperor Constantine, it was adopted for use by deacons.

In cases like this, I like to play word substitution. With a little tweaking to items 5 to 7, here is what we get if we replace ā€œdalmaticā€ with ā€œnecktieā€:

  1. The necktie was not from the Bible.
  2. The necktie was not an original garment that deacons wore.
  3. The source of the necktie came from worldly society.
  4. People had concerns about the necktie because it was considered to be effeminate.
  5. The necktie became associated with politicians, including presidents.
  6. Because of its ties to the French, it was adopted by men as formal attire.
  7. During the time of Herbert Armstrong, it became required for use by men attending services.