Wednesday, 28 January 2009

Jiminy Cricket

The Q&A section of Tomorrow's World carries many weighty queries. Here's the first one for 2009.

... why do some people object to such seemingly inoffensive outbursts as "gosh'" or "gee" or "Jiminy Cricket"?

The ponderous but unsigned TW response follows:

Because they are euphemisms for the names of God the Father and Jesus Christ - and those that use them are taking God's name in vain.

The proof text is, naturally, Exodus 20:7.

But, gosh, is that true? Let's check the Jewish Study Bible.

Assertions in court, in public affairs, and even in ordinary conversation were often backed up with conditional self-curses that would take effect if the swearer's assertion were false or his promise unfulfilled.

Gee, nothing about euphemisms there.

Let's haul out the HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism and see what it has to say.

The original purpose of this commandment is not clear. There is no textual reason to believe that it was an injunction against profanity, as it is popularly viewed today. Others ascribe to it the prohibition of a variety of sinful uses of Yahweh's name such as divination, blasphemy, imprecation, and magic. (Article: Commandments, the Ten)

Now let's think. If a preacher - Ronald Weinland for example - uses a form of divination (using proof texts rather than chicken entrails) to predict the Great Tribulation... that's taking the Lord's name in vain.

If a preacher - Rod Meredith for example - claims authority in God's name to collect tithes... that's taking the Lord's name in vain. Jeremiah 23:21 comes to mind.

I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied.

Now that's taking the Lord's name in vain!

Obviously these words in Exodus could apply in a number of ways, but euphemisms doesn't really seem to be one of them. On the other hand divination (nutty prophecies) and imprecations (e.g. Weinlandisms, Dankenbring and Coulter on the recent US elections) are rife in the Churches of God. The facile TW answer really seems to be straining at a cricket-sized gnat.

By Jiminy, maybe somebody should tell Rod!

53 comments:

Corky said...

My opinion only but it seems that taking God's name in vain is the same as accepting the covenant that he offered and not intending to keep it.

Accepting the covenant and then breaking it is the cause of all of Israel's punishments - according to the bible itself.

Folks of other nations not under the covenant with Israel's God is not responsible for keeping it and therefore are not taking God's name on them "in vain".

IMO, it has nothing to do with curse words at all.

Byker Bob said...

Judas Priest! They're still on this kick?

BB

Steve said...

According to Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, to take the Lord's name in vain means to "carry", or to say that God said something to you when he didn't. When preachers say, "The Lord spoke to me today and said . . ." this is carring the Lord's name in vain. When they are wrong, they not only discredit themselves, but God's reputation is tarnished, also.

Anonymous said...

Well Jiminy Cricket, how soon I forgot! According to the ministurds in Dayton we were not even allowed to have comic books or video's that had Jiminy Cricket in them. Our little childish minds would be cursing God every time we saw the Cricket or said the word. We were not allowed to read fairy tales because they all involved demonism and God forbid if you ever got into Greek fables! Everyone in the hierarchy of Armstrongism knew that all Greeks were homosexuals so all Greek myths and fables had no relevance for children of so called 'christians'. Ghastly days! What is this world coming to??????

Anonymous said...

Quite silly. I can't recall the last time anyone was offended by "gee" or even the last time someone used "golly" that wasn't on the cast of Leave it to Beaver.
No, it just shows how out of touch this religious sect is when it comes to the issues facing people today. Just like its founder, they are stuck in some 1950s time warp.

"Ghas...Ghas...argh" said...

annon said:

"Ghastly days! What is this world coming to??????"

Please don't ever say "Ghas...Ghas..." I can't say it , again! It gave me a flashback. I got woozy, my stomach churned and my knees buckled. I feel to the floor in visions of leisure suits and an entire campus adopting the phrase "Gha..Gha.." Argh, still can't say it. GTA said "Ghas...Gha..." argh, all the time and it became the new way to get around cussin'

Anonymous said...

People who love and honor God do not want to cheapen His name in any shape or form. If we are going to use the terms which are in place of using God,s name contempteously we might as well go ahead and say the real thing. The example of God,s faithful servants is very clear. They showed a reverence, awe, respect and honor always to the Creator. We must stop trying to make God in our image and learn to humble ourselves before Him. A little humility goes a long way

Anonymous said...

Geez, I remember whole sermons being dedicated to "Calling no man good." as that was also taking the lord's name in vain.

Leonardo said...

Quite frankly, I seriously question whether the "questions" in the Q&A section of most COG publications are genuine questions asked by sincerely inquiring people not associated with the COG organization publishing the question!

Many years ago, someone once made a very insightful comment to me: "You know, the Worldwide Church of God seems very good at answering it's own questions."

I suspect that many (perhaps most, or even all) of the "questions" asked in such Q&A sections fall into this category - serving as mere set-up "questions" intended to show off the "revealed knowledge" the COG's have become so arrogant about.

But the COG's are extremely EVASIVE when it comes to serious, up-to-date questions that are being asked by the serious scholars and deep thinkers in today's society.

Have you ever noticed that such relevant and penetrating questions never seem to make it into the Q&A section of any COG publication?

Hmmm, I wonder why?

Juan Rheinland said...

"Have you ever noticed that such relevant and penetrating questions never seem to make it into the Q&A section of any COG publication?

Hmmm, I wonder why?"

1. They only read their own booklets

2. The old answers are so imprinted in the mind that there are no better or newer ones.

3. Organizations that based their origins on being the one true church, with the one true ministry, giving the one true answers to all sorts of questions can't go back now.

4. It never dawns on them that they don't have to find the answer to every question in life in the pages of the Bible.

5. Pentrating questions bounce off

6. Reading outside the accepted box can get your fingers cut off and then your head.

7. They assume that all they do know is all there is to know.

8. It's too scary

9. They don't understand the question being asked in the first place.

10. Did I say they bounce off and don't penetrate to begin with?

Neotherm said...

Gavin:

My mistake. I knew both David and John Robinson, the former better than the latter. And I downloaded and read most of Robinson's book some years back. Quite incendiary but pretty unconvincing. It was kind of like reading Bin Laden's view on George Bush. What kind of credibility are you going to find?

My assertion is a simple one. Nobody has ever presented convincing evidence that HWA ever committed incest with his daughter.

The fact that someone didn't do something that might be expected is not evidence. The fact that someone in the inner circle said this or that does not prove anything. The fact that GTA said something like "I could destroy you!!" is inconclusive.

It is hilarious that someone would even mention that in the mouth of two witnesses something is established and then cite hearsay from more than one person. A self-serving manipulation of scripture. Who were the witnesses to the act? Why have they not come forward?

Alas, there are two people who know whether this is true. HWA and his daughter. Nobody else really knows. That is really not a difficult principle to understand.

-- Neo

Worldwide Church of Fraud said...

Juan Rheinland said, “4. It never dawns on them that they don't have to find the answer to every question in life in the pages of the Bible.”

MY COMMENT – That is the one thing I remember the most about the WCG – that they had an answer for every aspect of life great and small. I remember Jiminy Cricket and it reminds me that there was no subject matter too small that the WCG ministers couldn’t blow completely out of proportion.

At the risk of being banned from AW for profanity - Ghastly!

Richard

Anonymous said...

...it became the new way to get around cussin'...

By the '80s, we were saying "Holy man!" instead of "Holy cow!" (Because the latter was "Hindoo-worship, don'tchaknow".)

Anonymous said...

Well, jeez-o-pete, by golly! I sure do remember those days when saying innocent words were the devil's curse himself. So much time and effort in mind control. And NEVER say the word sh!t or da-n. Well, for cryin' out loud! I'm sure glad I'm out of all that, by golly!

Anonymous said...

I might be considered a wuss, but I very rarely use "strong language" or profane euphemisms, but it's basically a language thing and a matter of personal decorum. I wish modern versions of Perry White would limit their outbursts to Great Ceasar's Ghost.

As for COG Q&A, they have always been fairly superficial, and largely inconsequential. I think the most difficult question I ever read in the old PT was reconciling the two accounts of Judas Iscariot's death, and their stock answer has been dismissed by biblical scholars. Higher criticism is avoided or dismissed as "leaven of intellectualism."

Though I've reviewed a number of thesis drafts, if I ever saw "Now it can be told!" in the introduction (as with Dr Hoeh's second doctoral thesis) I think I would blurt out an expletive!

Baashabob said...

GREAT GARGANTUAN GHASTLINESS!!!

Sorry about that Ghas.. Ghas, I just couldn't resist repeating that line from GTA, who, of course, stole it from Batman and Robin. :-))

Ya think... said...

It has been observed:

"My assertion is a simple one. Nobody has ever presented convincing evidence that HWA ever committed incest with his daughter."

Same for David and Bathsheba

Same for David killing Uriah

Moses killing the Egyptian

Adam and Eve yielding to a talking snake

Noah getting stone drunk and getting into difficulties with whoever...

Lot getting stone drunk and making little Moabites with his daughters

Lot offering his daughter to the town fathers to spare his guests.

Lot's wife turning to salt

Abraham pawning Sarah off to the King to save his hide

Isaac doing the same when his turn to save his hide came around

Moses killing off 3000 after bringing the Big Ten down the hill

Moses spending 40 days away alone and then bringing the commandments back "carved by the finger of God."

Joshua stopping the earth from rotating so the killing could continue

Absolom being a bad boy

Solomon having 1000 women at his beck and call...whew!

Peter killing off (by the spirit) two naive church members.

Peter denying Jesus

John not denying Jesus

Every story, every description of some even or the sins of some human in the Bible is merely heresay in print. One can never know if it or was true as presented. We get used to saying, "well it's in the Bible." It's still hearsay and so we take it as fact when one can never prove it was so.

Even the winners wrote the Bible and get to tell us all not to be troubled by others but never tell us what they taught that was troubling so we could make up our own minds.

Except I do know that Ron Weinland and his wife truly are the Two Witnesses of Revelation. Anyone can see that's true...He told us so. Well, for that matter, Dave Pack is the true Apostle because..well..same thing...he told us all so. And time would fail to credit "that Prophet," with credibility. Oh and Bill Dankenbring. Definately the true Apostle..he told me so. :)

Baashabob said...

Neotherm said:
"The fact that GTA said something like "I could destroy you!!" is inconclusive. "

Yes, taken out of context it is inconclusive. But He also said, a little less inconclusively, "You f****d my sister." That comment was addressed to the old man himself.

Which just shows you that he remained true to the faith - no euphemisms were used on the 4th floor of the Hall of Administration :-)

Anonymous said...

Someone should wash your collective mouths out with soap!

Anonymous said...

A favorite of GTA was "Balderdash!" Did anyone ever accuse him of calling for Elisha?

Anonymous said...

"My assertion is a simple one. Nobody has ever presented convincing evidence that HWA ever committed incest with his daughter."



That's a fact, Jack!
If I was ever accused of such a thing I'd ignore it too. Why dignify it with a response?


And as for foul language, it's been my experience that the more foul the talk, the more shallow the mind.

Herb's protege said...

Anon 4:50

That's right. Claiming that statements were 100% false was only used on petty issues. Major accusations would always always remain ignored.

Anonymous said...

Yes, taken out of context it is inconclusive. But He also said, a little less inconclusively, "You f****d my sister." That comment was addressed to the old man himself.



can you supply any witnesses to that?

Anonymous said...

Does someone else want to link to the Gerringer letter? It's too early, and I'm too tired, and I don't have time. It's over on Ekklesia. You know. Thataway.

If you want a religious source for it, I think the execrable ESN has a few pieces on it as well (including testimony from a member who asked one of the AC insiders about it, and he confirmed it. Then backed it up with the David complex of lies and misdirection).

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:45 witnesses

From what I remember of Herb's own account, there were three people in his office during the final confrontation: himself, GTA and Shirley. From his account, at some point, Shirley stormed out of the office. If was there during GTA's alleged outburst, she's the only remaining witness.

Dennis said...

There has been a discernable downturn of late here on what seemed to be collective progress with the WCG experience among the regulars here.

At the risk of sounding too Tolle-ish, the painbodies have overtaken the fort.

What happened?

jack635 said...

I have the same Jimminy Cricket sticker on my cigarette case. I used it to remind myself of my little nephews. I did'nt want them to see me smoking and used Jimminy as a quit smoking aid.

Anonymous said...

To 'Ya think', AMEN brother!

With regard to herbert the pervert and the incest thing:

If you don't want to give any creedence to the alleged incest, fine. There are *many* many* other reasons to discredit armstrong's theology, his status as an end time Elijah, his claimed status as an Apostle, and his status as a decent human being. Those have been discussed ad nauseum here and other places including hundreds (or thousands) of personal testimonials and that should be enough for any person able to think for themsleves to reject both the man and his machine.

With regard to euphemisms and taking God's name in vain; mankind gives weight to words that we use, not God. Swearing an oath or making predictions by using someone else's name would be the definition of blasphemy or taking a name in vain because the individual is claiming the authority of and / or using the reputation of an individual, entity, or deity to give their own actions more weight.

Proclaiming that things like, "I don't care a flying fiddle-faddle" or "Goshdarn, golly gee willickers" are tantamount to a sin is pretty freaking ridiculous.

When you are a kid and you smash your thumb, you cry. As an adult and you smash your thumb, you call the parentage of the manufacturer into question or other such words that may escape your lips to help alleviate the pain. :)

Keep your issues bottled up and you wind up with Terry Ratzman. That didn't turn out well for anyone.

Russell Miller said...

Well golly gee willakers, my starts and garters, jiminy cricket, gee whiz!

Well, say what you want about me, that's one thing that doesn't bug me anymore! :-)

Anonymous said...

"There has been a discernable downturn of late here on what seemed to be collective progress with the WCG experience among the regulars here.

At the risk of sounding too Tolle-ish, the painbodies have overtaken the fort.

What happened?"


Market correction?

I dunno Dennis. If you're sensing a downturn, maybe it's the ill winds blowing from my currently-crappy life. :-(

OK! Enough of that self-pity schtick. Who wants to talk toilet paper?

Mr. Scribe said...

There seems to be here and on YouTube a concentrated effort to de-demonise
HWA dealing with the incest issue. Well the Plain Truth is that there is enough evidence in a court of law to have convicted the Herbster of incest. However as we all know, that trial will never come to pass in a court of law. What we do have is a psychological study of human beings and what they say or don't say that can give evidence of criminal activity.

1) Herb never denied the charge.
2) His daughter never denied that the event. (You would think that she would protect her dear father.)
3) We have the Tulsa Press article.
4) We have the FACT that the author of HWA's Tangled Web was never sued for his reporting of facts straight from a drunken Herbert Armstrong. Herbie only tried to STOP the book from being released.

I have given just a small tidbit of evidence that Herb was guilty. The Armstrongist believers here apparently do not believe what their own bible says about the testimony of witnesses. Really, they will deny this issue until the casket top is closed.

I write on this blog about this issue of incest and on YouTube, but people do not have a open mind on this. They will deny that Herbert was a religious charlatan. They only want to tell you that the man was the fulfillment of this or that, and that he was an apostle.

Well let me tell you "herbalist's" this fact. We will never go away. We will post and produce until our final days, proclaiming the Plain Truth about Herbert W. Armstrong.

As a former wcg minister wrote: I’ve often wondered if
Herbie ever had the chance to do what L. Ron Hubbard
did.  Hubbard, toward the end of his life, had a swarm
of dedicated loyalists actually sign a statement of
unswerving loyalty to him for the rest of eternity. 
This happening was related by an ex-Scientologist.
Would Herbie have demanded such written statements of
loyalty?  It’s not the first time such similar things
happened in Worldwide.  However, if anyone did that, the
first thing they’d throw away would be their free will
to choose their own thinking.  If anyone does this, then
they’d throw away their natural mental progression,
they’d stop thinking “outside the envelope,” their
education would cease, and their intellect would bury
itself deep within the nearest sewer.


As for the rest of you HWA fans here and elsewhere, the public will never accept in a post Christian era the crap you publish and push on TV or the internet. If someone does a google search on Herb they will see a vast amount of anti herbal website. I must ask, did your minister put you up to this?

Times are tough economically speaking. The churches of God may just sink into oblivion in this recession. I say good!

One reader of the AR wrote after Herb went to hell: I really feel that HWA should be given the "Lenin treatment" now in existence in Moscow. Herbie could be stuffed, placed in a crystal glass showcase, and set up in the lobby of his cathedral building for all his devotees to adore. I'm sure he would like that.

Anonymous said...

The criticism seem contained to the man, HWA.

No one can refute the teachings, however, and that is why the man is so hated. In reality it's not HWA that is hated, but God.

Bamboo_bends said...

The Eleventh Commandment:

Thou shalt not blog without the Chicago Manual of Style.

Byker Bob said...

There have been any number of supposed "coffin nails" driven into Armstrongism over the years, but a certain hard core refuses to believe them or to modify their behavior as a result of them.

Whether it be anecdotes repeated by HWA's close staff, failed prophecy, or more accurate exigesis pertinent to major doctrines, the hard core ones always find a way around them so that they can continue believing their beloved Armstrongism.

If David Robinson was halfway hip, after revealing the conversations in which he participated regarding the history of HWA's relationship with Dorothy, he might have gone off singing: "Bye bye Mr. Incest Pie..." thinking that the final ultimate nail had just been pounded into the coffin. But, while those allegations always capture major attention, they have largely served to capture the interest which might otherwise be dedicated to the serious disproofs of the doctrines, and failed prophecy. In a sense, they have become an obstacle to people's leaving the movement, as opposed to an incentive. It's like a mother attacking her son's wife, and ending up unifying the couple. So, in a sense, I often wish that the incest issue had never been exposed. It becomes a two edged lightning rod.

BB

Anonymous said...

Not too long ago I heard a 5 year old of COG parentage wax eloquent on not using "oh my gosh" because God didn't like it.....and to my knowledge no one around him had, he just launched into the lecture on his own.

Dennis said...

Purp said:
"I dunno Dennis. If you're sensing a downturn, maybe it's the ill winds blowing from my currently-crappy life. :-("

It's just your story and painbody. The real you is under there somewhere. :)

Give me call sometime and we'll chat about it DennisCDiehl@aol.com

Dennis said...

"No one can refute the teachings, however, and that is why the man is so hated. In reality it's not HWA that is hated, but God."

Right, that's why theologians all over the earth are flocking to United, PCG, RCG and Ron Weinland. Thousands are surrendering their professorships by the day and leaving their studies having seen the light. The theology section at Barnes and Noble has been cleaned out and space made for COG booklets.

Actually the teachings are rather easy to refute but it's at a level of refutation you would not understand.

Anonymous said...

"No one can refute the teachings, however, and that is why the man is so hated. In reality it's not HWA that is hated, but God."

You are farther into your delusions than I can even imagine one to be. Every single facet of "the teachings" is refutable, disprovable, and exposable. It matters not what you try to exemplify as being some sort of true "teaching", every single one of them can be rendered incorrect and worthless. Post anything and everything and I assure you, every single one, without any exceptions at all, will be disproven. However, even if and when this occurs, you will still wander aimlessly with your rose coloured glasses believing dead words from a dead snake oil salesman.

Vaughn W said...

Anonymous 01:39 saod "No one can refute the teachings, however, and that is why the man is so hated. In reality it's not HWA that is hated, but God."

LOL! ROFL! Quite simply, the bible itself refutes the man's teachings.

VonHowitzer said...

As a second generation cultboy I was thoroughly warned against the dangers of such blasphemous words and phrases!!

It was only later in life (ok, not that much later) that I learned a truth, best expressed by Mark Twain:

"In certain trying circumstances, urgent circumstances, desperate circumstances, profanity furnishes a relief denied even to prayer."

Think Twain was only a humorist, a writer? Think on the following:

"In religion and politics, people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second hand, and without examination."

Oops! That sounded positively Herbal! Speaking of which, Twain knew at least one of Harmstrongs laws of success...

"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure."

And again:

"I am not one of those who in expressing opinions confine themselves to facts."

And for all you AC grads:

"Training is everything. The peach was once a bitter almond; cauliflower is nothing but cabbage with a college education."

And one last one for the Weiner dude and all other self appointed prophets:

"Prophesy is a good line of business, but it is full of risks."

KMS

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:39, unless you were directing your comments toward a particular post, I think you will find HWA is not the only recipient of citicism. And following the rule against ad hominem argument, I think the criticism is leveled at acts, not persona.

I try to maintain the feeling about HWA et al similar that expressed by Leland (Joseph Cotten) about Kane (Orsen Welles) in Citizen Kane: "He wasn't a mean man, he just did mean things." Others may, and have the right, to disagree.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:22 - I think HWA a similar account related to euphemistic profanity in his Autobiography (1967). It was the story of "Dickie's first sermon."

Years ago I was with a family walking to their car, about to go to services. Some old ladies asked their 5 yo son where he was going, and he started to talk about going to Holy Day services. They didn't have a clue what he was on about...

Anonymous said...

"Not too long ago I heard a 5 year old of COG parentage wax eloquent on not using "oh my gosh" because God didn't like it.....and to my knowledge no one around him had, he just launched into the lecture on his own."

That's the saddest thing I've read in this cesspit all week. :-(

"Quite simply, the bible itself refutes the man's teachings."

The bible refutes its own teachings, while we're on the subject.

Dennis said...

The Purp noted:

"The bible refutes its own teachings, while we're on the subject."

Now that's a great one liner...and true. Copies of copies of copies of copies of copies can never quite be trusted. As Bart Erdman says, "Before you can understand what the text means, you have to understand what it really said."

At the next level, one who looks with a critical eye and not just an emotional connection, will see that what most take for history, inerrancy and harmony of belief is anything but and was never meant to be.

We choke on the sentence, "The Bible is not the best book ever written."

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote: "No one can refute the teachings, however, and that is why the man is so hated. In reality it's not HWA that is hated, but God."

-->Sigh<-- Just another glaring example of the deification of armstrong. During his time on earth he often equated disagreement with him as rebellion against God and here 23 years later, people are still equating armstrong with God.

Sad Sad Sad

And that little boy starting to sermonize...I can relate. I wound up in many a fistfight during my schoolboy years defending armstrongism. If there was one thing good that came out of that is that after getting my ass kicked the first few times, I finally learned how to kick some ass of my own. Those skills came in handy on more than one occasion.

Anonymous said...

PH~ I feel badly for you because you've told us that your life basically sucks and now you say this is a cesspit. Your memories of what Armstrongism have taken away from you are still painful.

Forgiving and forgetting = healing.

That is not just a religious or Christian principle. It is recognized by shrinks, in karmic terms, and does provide tremendous relief. While it appears to be something we do for others, reality is that we benefit directly from it ourselves. It releases those pain bodies Dennis keeps alluding to.

Don't think of it as a Bible thing, or a God thing. It is a dynamic principle that anyone can apply, and it doesn't discriminate.
It is something you can do that will give you seat of the pants improvement that you can feel!

~Green Phantom~

Dennis said...

Charlie said:

" I finally learned how to kick some ass of my own. Those skills came in handy on more than one occasion."

Yep, that's why I got my belts in Karate and EMT training when a pastor. I could tell the church.."Look, I can marry you, I can bury you, I can kick you ass and I can fix it. What more do you want from me?"

It was never enough.

:)

Anonymous said...

"That is not just a religious or Christian principle. It is recognized by shrinks, in karmic terms, and does provide tremendous relief."

Oh, yeah, I'm in complete agreement with that GP. Unfortunately, right now, I seem to have the forgetting part down pat, as in forgetting how to let things slide on the way I once was able to. Backsliding? Hell yeah. How to bring myself out of it, however, is the part I haven't quite figured out yet.

Neotherm said...

Basshob:

You wrote: "Yes, taken out of context it is inconclusive. But He also said, a little less inconclusively, "You f****d my sister." That comment was addressed to the old man himself."

This proves only that GTA believed that an event took place. Who told him? How did he know? Was someone trying to create a rift between HWA and GTA? There are all kinds of reasons why this might have been said. But it does not constitue evidence.

-- Neo

Anonymous said...

Neo - Was someone trying to create a rift between HWA and GTA?

Is that meant to be a rhetorical question?

Mike (Don't Drink the Flavor Aid) said...

If I were on a criminal jury for a trial of HWA on incest charges, I'd have to find him "not guilty" based on what's been presented.

But I'm not on a criminal jury so I can evaluate what has been presented and decide for myself whether or not I believe it. I think it quite plausible that he did what he was accused of.

Since we don't have conclusive evidence, Neo and others are free to disbelieve it. I rather suspect they'd still disbelieve it even if there were a videotape of HWA doing the nasty with his daughter.

I have to agree with Byker Bob that it was unfortunate that this came to light. It turns the conversation toward the possible abuse by HWA of one child and away from his abuse of thousands of other children who grew up in Armstrongism.

Baashabob said...

Neo said:
"This proves only that GTA believed that an event took place. Who told him? How did he know? Was someone trying to create a rift between HWA and GTA?"

That's a good question. Let's assume for sake of argument, that someone was trying to stir up trouble, like Robinson for instance. Is it reasonable to believe that GTA would believe such a horrendous thing? He would want proof; wouldn't you?

We are left with the reasonable conclusion that a trusted, close family member (Dorothy?) was the source of the information, or that GTA made the whole thing up. But then we have the testimony of several other people (some of them family members) who claim that Dorothy also informed them of the same thing.

I agree that it is possible that the whole story is some kind of great conspiracy. It is also possible that we are being monitored by aliens. But neither possibility has much probability of being true.

Bamboo_bends said...

Its the same old routine. Their preachers give them phrases that sound like HWA activities were something concocted by "hateful" dissident Church of God'ers when their own preachers know the truth and suppressed it all.

As to Theil's recent blog on the subject (I notice that unlike Gavin he doesn't give room for opposing viewpoints) what was GTA supposed to say after all? Could GTA verifying it improve his own image when dealing with a known apologist for his long time enemy, Rod Meredith, not likely.

What was your Pastor General doing during the "formulative" phase of God's work?" Inquiring minds should ask that question. After all extraordinary claims for God's personal calling in oneself requires extraordinary evidence.

PS:Forgiving and forgetting = healing. Nobody forgets their Armstrong experience, how nice it would be if we could! Forgive what was done to us, yes that comes in time. But there's still the obligation of love which requires those who have been through it all, to warn others.