REFERENCE: (Edited 23 AUGUST 2026) To followers of the Herbert Armstrong faith tradition.

Any desiring to discuss or challenge me on this material can reach me on TruthSocial at @LTWalker03.

Scroll down for “True Church” ordinational Succession discussion.

—

1960 article where Armstrong states that his public talk approving of listening to teachers outside of his church DOES NOT APPLY TO HIS MEMBERS: https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getmagazine&InfoID=1324739652&SearchWhat=KeyWord&SearchFor=Should%20we%20listen%20to%20others%201960&NoShow=&page=&return=search

1979 article where Armstrong states that his public talk of, “Don’t believe me; believe your Bible” DOES NOT APPLY TO HIS MEMBERS: https://www.hwalibrary.com/cgi-bin/get/hwa.cgi?action=getmagazine&InfoID=1374325663&GetMag=GN&byYear=1979&page=&return=magazines

Counter to traditional Armstrongist eschewance of Civic Duty: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/06/reference-counter-to-traditional.html?m=1

Takeoff of Pam Tillis’ “Cleopatra: Queen of Denial,” comparing lyrics to Armstrongism: https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/08/pam-tillis-cleopatra-queen-of-denial.html?m=1

—-

“True Church” ordinational Succession discussion:

Definition note —“Armstrongist/Armstrongism”: Shorthand for churches, ministries, or adherent members derived from the ministry of Herbert W. Armstrong and/or the church  fellowship he founded, the Worldwide Church of God — particularly if such are substantially adherent to the theology thereof. 

This is off topic for this blog, but it is put here for referencing. It is adapted and heavily edited from correspondence with a current Armstrongist, and continues to be edited. Thus it is likely at times to appear disjointed and repetitious. I am less concerned about the smoothness of my prose than I am the reality which people of my former religiosity need to face.

—

Executive Summary: The “True Church” Succession Problem

Classic Armstrongism claims exclusive authority as the “True Church” based on an unbroken line of ministerial ordinations stretching from Christ’s apostles to Herbert W. Armstrong and his successors. Under this teaching, a minister is only legitimate if ordained by someone already in that succession; self-appointed leaders or converts from other denominations, particularly if non-Sabbatarian, don’t count. The problem is historical: even Armstrongist historian Craig White admits there is “no evidence” of such a succession. Church of God (Seventh Day) records show its founders held mainstream Protestant ordinations and adopted Sabbatarianism later, and Andrew Dugger only began articulating the succession idea in the 1920s — citing as his “first insight” into the matter a 1922 meeting with a Seventh Day Baptist minister and an Ethiopian prince of (to be charitable) indeterminate authenticity.

Since Armstrongist ministers routinely liken themselves to the Levitical priesthood, the biblical precedent applies directly: Ezra 2:59-63 and Nehemiah 7:61-65 record that claimants of priestly lineage who could not document their genealogy were declared “unclean” and “set aside” from the priesthood until proof could be established. The burden of proof therefore rests on Armstrongist groups to document the chain of ordinations. They cannot identify who ordained Armstrong, let alone trace it back to the apostles. When pressed, major groups like LCG and UCG either deflect with word games about “human lineage” or give no substantive answer. By their own analogy and their own admission, the claim fails.

Much “True Church history” material contains notable and demonstrable difficulties and contradictions. Things like speculative and unverified historical assertions, hiding or ignoring gaps and inconvenient facts, and even inconsistent and flawed use of the “Church of God” phrase as a historical identifier. These works sometimes fall into circular reasoning: “‘True Church’ identity” is used to prove “‘True Church’ identity”—an individual or group is identified as part of the “True Church” because the succession theory requires it, and then that identification is used as evidence for the succession.

That doesn’t automatically falsify any particular doctrine, but it removes the binding authority Armstrongism asserts over its members. If succession isn’t required, then anyone can claim to be a minister and the movement loses its exclusive status. If it is required, they can’t prove it. Either way, members are not biblically bound to Herbert Armstrong or his organizational heirs, and are free to examine doctrine independently.

—————

Full article:

Classic “Armstrongism,” for want of a better term, teaches that the “True Church” is defined and delineated in its visible/physical identity and authority by a lineage of ministerial ordinations (sometimes termed “apostolic succession”). Christ ordained the original apostles, who ordained people, who ordained people, yada-yada-yada, who ordained people, and at least one of those people personally ordained by the laying on of hands Herbert Armstrong. All of these people will have followed “true” Christianity, which means they were seventh-day Sabbatarian. They will not have descended from the supposed Simon Magus counterfeit religion, as Armstrong would elaborate, and at no point will there be a non-Sabbatarian in this lineage. 

This was the explanation given by Andrew Dugger, Jr and CO Dodd in their 1930s book “A History of the True Religion” (originally titled, “A History of the True Church”). Armstrong embraced this concept, and intensified it in the 1950s. See “Must God’s ministers be ordained by the hands of man?” (1960 version). The idea is that to be a “true” Christian minister, one must have been ordained by the literal action of a minister in that succession. 

This is not my opinion. This is the teaching of your faith tradition. If you found a minister of a small congregation somewhere meeting on Saturdays and perhaps teaching a few doctrines traditionally associated with your faith tradition (Armstrongism), that would not necessarily mean that church is a “true Church of God” (or “branch of the Church,” the terminology preferred by some like the late Roderick Meredith). The minister would had to have been ordained in that discussed lineage. He couldn’t have been, say, ordained as a Presbyterian minister, looked at the Decalogue, and said, “Oh, wait! We should be observing the seventh day, not Sunday!” and then led his congregation to do so. Likewise, lay members of your faith tradition meeting without a minister could not say to you, “Hey, dude! You’re doing the job of a minister. We think God wants you to be a minister,” then all lay hands on you and declare you ordained, and have it be legitimate (in the eyes of your religion). You wouldn’t have ministerial authority, and your “congregation” would simply be a gathering of individual adherents to your faith.

It is this claim of ordinational lineage that gives the ministry of your faith tradition their legitimacy as a binding authority. Thus it is core to the claim of Herbert Armstrong being an “apostle,” “the Elijah,” etc. If that lineage does not in fact exist in his ordination, then the claim of his authority is false, as is that of the ministry ordinationally descended from him.

Dugger in his aforementioned book describes an incident which he purports to be an example of this ministerial succession:

(Please note that Dugger does not actually confirm there that those particular people were indeed Sabbatarians. Not all Waldensians were.) 

Unfortunately for proponents of the theory, such purported examples are rare in the research of historians attempting to track the succession. All of the “True Church” histories you read will align nonconformist groups with known Sabbatarian elements roughly temporarily and geographically from the Holy Land to Britain, and then across to North America. But they will also all, including and especially Dugger and Dodd’s, fail to explicitly link these different groups together.

Craig White of Australia has done decades of research in “True Church history,” and has sought to demonstrate the alleged linkage going here in North America. Whatever doctrinal commonalities the different Sabbatarian groups may have possessed (and doctrines can be transmitted or developed between or within fellowships in the number of ways with no ordinational or organizational succession), he admits failure in finding the requisite linkages. 

From White’s writeup, A Note on the Seventh-Day Baptist Relationship to the Church of God:

(Please forgive the chinsy photos above. Technical issues and the fact that I was extremely tired at the time of initial processing headed off a cleaner image. But I’m sure all of you have too much honesty and integrity to hold a small production value fail against the substance discussed here.)

Note Point 4: 

“[I]f there is very little linkage between them and there is no evidence of ongoing sequence of laying hands upon subsequent leadership or elders from one era to the next, how does one know it is legitimate?…” (Craig White, Armstrongism historian)

He acknowledges “no evidence” of the ordinational succession, and then asks the resultant question of how to evaluate the “legitima[cy]” of the Armstrongist “True Church” and ministry claim.

And here is the answer: Ezra 2:59-63 and Nehemiah 7:61-65 include a reference to a number of families claiming Levitical descent at the rebuilding of Jerusalem, but whose names are not listed in a registry of such descendants. This results in them being declared “unclean” and set aside from the functions and privileges of the priesthood (until objective verification could be had). Putting this in jurisprudential terms, this is a “precedent,” an event which sets out how situations like this ought to be handled. The “burden of proof” lies with the people claiming the succession exists. It does not lie with somebody challenging it. 

The Armstrongist ministry has long and strongly drawn a direct parallel between itself and the Levitical priesthood. No remotely experienced Armstrongist can deny this with a straight face. That said, I will include a few of my favorite examples to illustrate the depth your religion takes this. The reference to “Levites” in the Deuteronomy 14:28-29 discussion of “third tithe” was used to justify the use of the assistance fund to pay for home renovations of ministers. I even recall a minister at a WCG Feast of Tabernacles saying that it could be used to directly augment ministerial salaries because of this (though he denied it had ever happened). Much of the authority and prestige of the Armstrongist ministry comes from drawing such parallels. A UCG minister after the 1995 event even said that they could call themselves “priests” because of the Levitical parallel if they so chose. Another minister, then still in WCG post-1995 but now pastoring for UCG, told me of how at WCG headquarters in Pasadena, since ordained ministry were called “spiritual Levites,” they went full-circle terminology-wise and referred to non-ordained church workers as “PHYSICAL Levites.” Armstrong himself took it so far as to even roll it over into a theory that many of his ministers were descended literally – genetically – from the Levitical line. 

( Here is a comedic story touching on this, involved security at the Ambassador campus. The writer is obviously very discontented with Armstrongism. It seems that security volunteers on the Sabbath were given a technical consideration of being “spiritual Levites” in order to justify their work on the Sabbath. As all good satire is based in truth, it demonstrates just how truly serious the Armstrong faith tradition has taken the supposed Levitical parallel. )

The Levite-“True Church” minister analogies go on and on, and every minister of the Armstrong tradition knows that.

Ergo, following the parallel laid out by the ministry of your faith tradition, it is on them or their supporters to show the lineage exists. And if that cannot be done – and up to now it has not been done – they are to be considered set aside, and their doctrinal and spiritual authority nonbinding.

Despite this, Armstrongist apologists not only seek to avoid the general issue, but actually play dumb on the whole matter. Note the following exchange on LCG’s “Tomorrow’s World” YouTube channel. “TommygunNG” is yours truly.

“HUMAN lineage” (emphasis added). Is that genetic or actional (by ordination)? This purposeful distortion of the issue is shocking in its audacity. Obviously, this being more of an outreach channel, LCG is attempting to hide the reality of their faith from the uninitiated – that is, prospective members. They will think in general terms about a lineage or succession, believing there’s nothing to what I asked, while members can CHOOSE to take it as referring to genetic reproduction in order to deny to themselves the disingenuousness. But in reality, all their muddling does is show the legitimacy of my point, and their own complete lack of a genuine answer. 

To their credit of sorts, at least they were attempting something vaguely substantive. When I asked a comparable question to LCG via Facebook Messenger in 2021, this one specifically regarding who ordained Armstrong himself, their only response was, “Mr. Armstrong explained his ordination in some of his articles, autobiography, etc.” On the other hand, UCG did not reply at all, and COGaWA only replied after a second message noting that they did not reply, with them saying, “Hello! Thank you for your message!  We will personally reply to your message as quickly as possible. In the meantime, feel free to check out our website at […]!” Of course, no such “personal reply” ever came.

Even attempting to deny the direct applicability of the scriptural example (and thus losing much of the power and prestige in the ministry gained by the Levitical typology), the precedent sets the parallel in establishing the burden of proof for succession claims. Think about it. If a woman from your past claimed her child was the result of a union between the two of you, you would not simply accept her claim. You would demand affirmative proof that the child was yours. How much more important than the genealogy of a single individual is being sure that the doctrinal authority you believe you are bound to is the correct one? 

Today we have DNA tests to determine physical paternity. But unfortunately, there is no spiritual DNA test that can track ministerial ordinations. People have to rely on verifiable documentation for that. And unfortunately for your religion, the Armstrong faith tradition cannot even determine what elder(s) ordained Armstrong himself, let alone who ordained him/them, etc., back to the original apostles.

Church of God (Seventh Day) history shows that the early ministers of that denomination held ordinations from mainstream non-Sabbatarian protestant churches. CG7’s founders were simply ministers who became involved in the Millerite/Adventist movement and adopted seventh-day Sabbatarianism. Few if any came in as Sabbatarians. The same can be said of most of the lay members. They were not “rebaptized” upon this change in their practice.* The whole claim of such a lineage preceding the formation of what became CG7 did not exist until the 1920s. Dugger himself claimed in a 1926 article that his “first insight” on the idea came from an event in 1922:

(Sorry again about chinsy photos.)

More here from Richard Nichols’ history (from Friends of the Sabbath) 

Prior to that 1922 event, and even for a time later, concepts of being “true“ as an ecclesiastical body in CG7 and CG7-adjacent bodies had to do with restorationism — that is, restoring proper, believed to be biblical, forms, doctrines, and practices to the Christian fellowship. Any Christian church, regardless of background or doctrine, could “become true” by simply reforming into what was viewed as that proper biblical design. That hypothetical Presbyterian congregation mentioned at the beginning of this article would at least be on the route to becoming “true.“ G.G. Rupert championed this in his 1919 work, “Is There a True Church Organization?” It had nothing to do with specific bodies, ministerial hierarchical authority, or exclusive claims to membership. It involved being “true” to the intent of Christ.

It might also bear notice that “True Church” to Dugger did not imply any near-exclusive claim to Christian conversion of members. That is, there was no claim that his CG7 and CG7-derivative churches constituted essentially all that was of the Body of Christ. In that same 1926 article mentioned above, Dugger explicitly labeled SDB members as “noble and consecrated christians(sic)” – see second screenshot of the article above – with a similar implication toward SDA members. Indeed, much like Armstrong in the early days of his Sabbatarianism, Dugger and CG7 didn’t even eliminate non-Sabbatarians from consideration as what Armstrong would call “true Christians.“ There was no “Sabbatarian exclusivism.” Such a virtual elimination of non-Sabbatarians and those outside of Armstrong’s “Church of God” faith tradition had to wait for Armstrong‘s “selective calling” take on John 6:44, et al.

* There is, however, indication that such “rebaptism” were done by CG7 sometimefollowing the 1922 event, at least in some unusual cases. Armstrong himself said that he was pressured to get rebaptized after his 1927 baptism by a Baptist minister, and there is substantial evidence he indeed submitted to such in 1930 – the year the Oregon Conference of CG7 legally incorporated and the year before his ordination. This includes corroborated eyewitness testimony, and the fact that, despite Armstrong’s denial, CG7 did hold him to be a member of that church – most notably by ordaining him a minister. UCG actually reported this baptism in a 2020 Newsletter, but it has since been completely scrubbed this from online versions. Photo of hardcopy version HERE. (And preserved in appendices and such on this blog post.) 

Possibly related to the above note, note the following from Dugger’s book, and note a definite shift in what constitutes a “true” church from pre-1922 statements (notwithstanding the continued lack of Sabbatarian exclusivism on individual conversion):

(Please be aware that evidence of seventh-day Sabbatarianism amongst the Mayflower Pilgrims is extremely lacking. In fact, elsewhere in his book, the only evidence he offers for it is a family story he found in 1934. Ben Franklin, On the other hand, is known to have been such an observer during part of his life, though he seems to have come to the practice on his own apart from any Sabbatarian church. Strangely reminiscent of Charlie Kirk. But that is a topic for another day.)

Note that he discusses “mainstream“ Christian history and the “apostolic“ authority. This is actually somewhat typical of such “True Church” histories. They will usurp church histories of other faith traditions in an effort to demonstrate linkages that simply do not exist. Seventh Day Baptist history makes for a logical target in the North American area. Efforts in the 1920s to merge CG7 and SDB were abandoned by SDB in 1926 for this very reason. Interestingly, one of the leading SDB leaders involved in the effort was Elder Robert B St. Clair, the other minister involved in Dugger’s 1922 meeting with the supposed Ethiopian prince. 

Herman Hoeh himself was called out in 1991 for doing this, and in a quite seemingly questionable manner (HERE — See appendices.) His aim, and that of more recent such “historians,” is to demonstrate – or construct – a lineage not passing through that other denomination’s history. The less SDB involvement, the better it is for the Armstrongist “Church of God” exclusivity claim. 

Unfortunately for them, history simply does not bear the claim out, and in fact points against the claim. Contrary to the impressions given by people like Herman Hoeh, there are no (known) ordinational linkages between them and any sort of Sabbatarian line back to antiquity. 

A clever and perhaps typical example of an attempt to give this unfounded perception is found in LCG’s booklet on the subject, discussed above in the YouTube screenshots. In a particularly odd case of attention to detail, and one that would seem to embrace SDB lineage (such is the desperation), it attempts to mislead readers into thinking Roswell Cottrell, a Seventh Day Baptist who entered the Millerite/Adventist movement in 1851 and became a leading figure in the movement, was a “long time Sabbatarian minister” at the time of his entrance. The truth is, while his family has a long Sabbatarian history (back to the 1630s) and his father John was a former SDB minister who entered Adventism the same year, he himself was not apparently ordained until 1854 – that is, already within the Adventist movement, and two years after his father’s death. (Plus, at age 34, he wouldn’t have been a “long-time” anything!) The apparent intent is to imply to the initiated reader that the supposed “True Church” ordinational succession might have entered Adventism through him. Yet without a prior ordination, it obviously could not. 

Speculative thought: I have to wonder if the writer actually intended critics to look into the fellow and find his family’s descent from European nonconformist groups often mentioned in “True Church” histories. The problem, though, is that actual attention to detail and a refusal to simply accept their unfounded presumptions defeats the effort. (Good try, though.😁)

I should make note of Bob Thiel of CCOG. Characterizations of his operation aside, he has invested heavily in attempting to map out the supposed “True Church“ ordinational succession, proposing numerous connections among Sabbatarian ministers and churches in colonial America and the early 1800s. Yet few of these connections can be verified, they often do not involve ordinations, and they do not form a cohesive chain. And of course, he cannot answer the simple question of who ordained Herbert Armstrong. 

In his reaction to this article (as posted in an earlier version on another website), he acknowledged the following:

Notice he acknowledges errors in the material by which he and others came to believe the Duggerite theory. Yet, he dogmatically holds to the idea, despite that same research uncovering the errors has failed to produce the requisite connections.

Thus, Craig White is not the only present-day Armstrongist historian on record as unable to demonstrate the supposed succession, despite the unprecedented amount of information available and the searching power of the Interwebs. Thiel, whose status fundamentally depends on the succession and whose operation pours tremendous resources into the effort, also fails to do so. (It’s almost as if there is no connected succession to be found. “Mouth of two witnesses”?)

Thiel’s statement here actually illlustrates a fundamental issue with so much of Armstrongist “True Church” history. He acknowledges that the historical record is incomplete, yet continues to presume that an unbroken succession existed. The supposed succession then becomes part of the evidence for identifying the True Church.

Armstrongist “True Church” history works too often seem to boil down to circular proofs: starting with the premise that the Armstrong faith tradition must possess an unbroken succession, then cherry-picking historical information to support that premise while hazing over or even omitting the crucial failures to establish the chain itself. The writers did not necessarily intend to deceive. Some no doubt sincerely believed that they were doing the right thing for what they believed and believe to be the “true religion.“ But the result is nevertheless a distorted historical narrative, and thus a distorted understanding of the historical reality itself. And that is a fundamental maleficence to the sincere believer.

An obvious example of such crucial omissions would be the 1922 meeting. Dugger completely omits it from his book, even though he was a central party in it! Richard Nichols mentioned it several times, though I’m not sure he really realized what he was mentioning. I’ve seen it a few other places, including for a while on Bon Thiel’s website, though it appears to be gone now for whatever reason. (🤷‍♂️) 

But perhaps one of the more self-serving omissions by the original “True Church” historians like Dugger and Hoeh is Rachel Oaks Preston. Her story is actually fairly well documented. She was a SDB widow who attended a Washington, New Hampshire non-Sabbatarian congregation of Millerite leaning. Known as the kind of lady who would let you know what she thinks, in 1843, though some sources try to place it in 1844, she presented the ministry with seventh-day Sabbath information. This ultimately led to the adoption of the practice by the congregation, and the concept spread spreading very quickly through the Millerite – “Adventist” – movement. She is regaled as a heroine by both the SDB and SDA churches. 

But relatively few Armstrongists have even heard of the woman. Dugger, Hoeh, and even Nichols will discuss the 1840s as a time of transition, where the supposed “True Church” shifted from the SDB orbit to the Millerite/Adventist orbit. The event is occasionally mentioned (though, surprisingly, or not, it is not mentioned in Dugger’s book), but rarely is its prime instigator.

Typical of this is this line from Hoeh’s work: 

“In 1843 several followers of Miller in

Washington, New Hampshire, became acquainted with the truth of the Sabbath.”

It goes on to discuss the follow up (whole section is quoted later in this blog post). But it never mentions her name. The passive result of the action is referenced, but not the action itself or its actor.

To be fair, part of the reason for the omission may have been worry that explaining the event would promote lay member evangelism, which is highly discouraged to say the least in traditional Armstrong culture. And related to that, the idea of a Sabbatarian, potentially “true Christian,” attending a non-Sabbatarian church like that would be quite distressing. 

But consider also the issue of self-identification. Mentioning Rachel Oaks Preston and her actionswould break any illusion among members that there was the same cognizance of the supposed “True Church” status among members that there was when they were writing. As with the 1922 event, it would demonstrate that these “true Christians“ did not see themselves as separate from other, more “mainstream“ Christian professing people.

Also to be fair, more modern Armstrong historians will mention her. Craig White does discuss her. As mentioned before, the history put out by LCG references her, albeit perhaps minimizing her impact. I also personally recall seeing Richard Nichols even having a bio on her – though I also recall him glossing over the whole time period in a SDB history in which he does mention a Centennial Celebration of the event, but never actually describes the event being commemorated.

Notice this from the same Craig White article linked to before. It actually quotes the Hoeh work linked above, including the line in question:

Here we see Hoeh offering a crucial historical claim for which he provides no evidence, and which later investigation by one of his successors fails to substantiate. Conjecture based on the preconceived notion which it is his entire objective to demonstrate. He simply states what had to happen for the theory to be correct, giving the impression that he had somehow confirmed it did happen.

This actually also points to another possible and more profound reason for omitting the actions of Rachel Oakes Preston. It goes to the overall effect on the succession narrative. The 1843 event undercuts Hoeh’s own unsubstantiated claim of that major orbital shift. It makes Sabbatarianism in the Millerite/Adventist movement appear more homegrown than transplanted. That is, Sabbatarians in Adventism are more likely to be Adventistconverts to Sabbatarianism

than they are Sabbatarian converts to Adventism. If that is the case, then the continuous chain becomes thin at the very best. And as we saw before regarding this, there simply is no evidence of the level of transfer claimed by Hoeh. It undercuts the entire image of the continuous “True Church.”

As for circular reasoning more generally, consider this, which immediately follows the above in White’s article. We see Hoeh actually backing off from one of the key “proofs of the True Church” – the “Church of God” name. He lays out that previous elements of the succession in terms of congregations and churches actually used different names. This in spite of the basis for Herbert Armstrong’s alleged 1928 “search for the True Church.” But note the reaction of “historian” White to this fundamental departure from the doctrine. 

(Some screens, especially smart phones, may require clicking on the picture below in order to read. As with some pictures before, my production skills on this free blog can leave a bit to be desired. But please, as said before, consider the SUBSTANCE, not the presentation.)

Our historian, who has been so honest with the facts that contradict his religion, finds himself happily accepting this grand departure from a core doctrine – that is, that the True Church will have some permutation of “Church of God” in its denominational/congregational name. And then, he accepts uncritically Hoeh’s identification of these people lacking the “biblical name” as “true Christians.” As he noted with Hoeh’s earlier assertion, he offers no evidence for his judgment that these people were truly divinely converted.

White accepts Hoeh’s authority to identify these people as true Christians, while Hoeh’s identification itself is part of the historical argument being used to establish the True Church. This is an appeal to authority that becomes circular: Hoeh’s identification of these people as true Christians is accepted as evidence for the succession, while the authority for that identification ultimately rests on the very succession being argued for.

For those less initiated in this whole matter, perhaps a discussion of the role of the term “Church of God” may be beneficial. Though the phrase obviously has a generic sense of referring to the Body of Christ or the body of Christians in general, it is a key, even crucial, element in the traditional identification in the CG7/Armstrong tradition of the “True Church.” The church name issue is upheld as a key spawning issue of CG7 and its departure from the SDA mainstream of Adventism. Learning of its presence in SDB history from his meeting with the SDB elder and the “Ethiopian prince”🙄 launched Andrew Dugger conceiving of the whole “(one) True Church” concept. And of course, Herbert Armstrong related in his writings that the “Church of God” name factored with the seventh day Sabbath in his 1927 “search for the True Church.”

But here, a few caveats must be stated. First, as stated before, the term can be used generically. Simply because it appears in a church’s documents does not mean it is claiming it as a denominational name in the sense that the “True Church” concept demands. Both Dugger and Hoeh especially made the clear mistake of ignoring this factor. When it appeared in a Sabbatarian church’s discussion of itself, they were far too quick to present it to their readers as the denominational/congregational name. The 1705 Piscataway, New York congregation is an example. Though it had the operative phrase in their documents, their church name used the “Church of Christ” phrase. Yet, Dugger and Hoeh routinely presented it errantly. Hoeh himself was personally called out for these sorts of math applications in 1991 in that same response to his church history series in the PT.

Armstrongists are rather conditioned to think of a term as a denominational name. Even today, every WCG offshoot uses some permutation of it – even if they have to add “of the Church of God” onto the end of a pre-existing nonconforming name. As a result, they will tend to accept uncritically assertions by Armstrongist historians that the phrase was so used in a given case, and automatically presume it when they come across it in their own readings of “outside literature.“ This obviously contributes to their common or founded preconception of a confirmed validity of the ordinational and organizational succession.

Members need to be aware of confirmation bias when investigating this whole topic. A Sabbatarian “Church of God” doesn’t necessarily link to their own.

The second aspect of this to be noted lies in the search described by Armstrong himself. He presents it as starting soon after his baptism by a Baptist minister, and says that the only church he could find that fit the bill was CG7. However, it must be remembered that he was already in contact with CG7. Loma learned of seventh day Sabbath observance through the Runcorns, a somewhat leading CG7 couple. He even approached CG7 – specifically, according to some reports, an Elder Unzinger – for his baptism. So Armstrong certainly would’ve been familiar with their developing “True Church” claims. The concept and his search terms would not have been of his own devising or intuition, but taken from Dugger’s concept. He’s known to have been an avid magazine reader. He likely saw the February 1926 Bible Advocate article laying out the 1922 meeting event. He reasonably should’ve been aware of the fairly recent origin of the whole idea. 

Of course, it should also be noted that despite CG7 being the “only” church he found fitting the bill, there were indeed others, including G. G. Rupert’s “independent” Church of God, which actually observed the annual Holy Days as well.

One additional note: The Seventh Day Baptist Conference actually use the phrase “church of God” (lowercase initial “C”) in their Beliefs Statement. Given comparable cases in Armstrongist “True Church” history attempts, one might actually use that as an argument to include SDB within the “greater True Church.”

Now, I must address what is perhaps the biggest circular logic of the whole matter, and it points to the ultimate significance of the whole succession issue. It’s one that often gets raised with me when I raise this issue with people of Armstrongist background: Revelation 2 and 3 “Church Eras.” Without discussing the validity of the doctrine which is decidedly not the purpose of this article – originating in Christian theology long before the 1922 meeting with the Ethiopian “prince,” it simply holds that the seven churches discussed in those chapters represent successive historical terms of the Body of Christ. Applying it to the “True Church” belief, Dugger held that his own time and church constituted the traditionally preferred “Philadelphia” era. Armstrong, of course, did the same with his.

But there was a crucial difference. Dugger delineated the era as beginning circa 1798, a date borrowed in prophetic significance from SDA, fixing on Napoleon’s henchman seizing Rome and banishing the Pope. Dugger also attributed the term “Philadelphia” as applying to Philadelphia, PA, and the rise of religious liberty associated with it. “Liberty Town,“ for my fellow Huey Lewis fans.😀 Armstrong, on the other hand, asserted that the era began in the 1930s with the rise of his own personal ministry.

So while Dugger used historical developments of universally recognized notoriety and significance, Armstrong used a time significant only if indeed he was all that he was believed to be, including a holder of the “True Church” ordinational succession. 

And indeed, this has contributed to much circular reasoning. I will always remember a line from one of the “Resistance” articles in 1995, upholding traditional WCG doctrines by saying that (quoting for memory) “[n]o one denies that Herbert Armstrong was the human head of the Philadelphia era of God’s True Church. So how could he be wrong about so many important things?” Of course, those doctrines are used to argue that Armstrong was indeed not only part of the supposed succession, but also a minister of truly extraordinary significance – i.e., “Elijah.”

So truly, it is the ultimate circle. Ministerial succession, doctrine, Armstrong’s prophetic role, and “True Church” identity interlocking in an endless figure-eight of subjective and intuitive conclusions. One need only look again at Craig White’s conclusion in that article to see how he holds to all of these, even as he acknowledges the historical record fails: 

Presumption of the era; presumption of Armstrong’s significance (“1986”– the date of his death); presumption of his church’s status; subjective conclusions drawn from his “fruits”; and then incorporating the “Church of God” name (even though that passage is actually Christ talking – “Church of Jesus”?; and it was “Sardis” that supposedly “revived” the name anyway, by Armstrongist reckoning). Each supporting another, and ultimately arriving back where it began. All despite the self-debunking in Point 4 and his suggestion of a divine (“miraculous“) basis for a Sabbatarian movement completely separate from any pre-existing Sabbatarian lineage.

Such is how it is for Armstrongist “True Church” apostolic ordinational succession belief. And it all started with Dugger meeting an Ethiopian prince.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

And thus, based on the Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7 precedent and the most basic of common sense, your religion’s claim of exclusively being “true Christianity” and the teachings of your ministry — INCLUDING THAT OF HERBERT ARMSTRONG — ought to be disregarded as authoritative in the sense traditionally held in Armstrongism. This does not mean that you or they are or were wrong about any other given point of biblical doctrine. It’s simply means that you are not bound before God to believe those ministers, and thus are free to study questions and arrive at different conclusions. You are not bound to Herbert Armstrong, WCG, or their legacy. They (good or bad), their doctrines (correct or incorrect), and their judgments (just and unjust) hold no authority over you. You do not need to suffer under an unjust judge.

In a very real sense, I personally do not care what days you rest for worship. I do not care what you believe about the state of the dead. I do not care whether or not you doctrinally allow or prohibit makeup or interracial marriage. I can even sadly tolerate the denial of civic duty among many Armstrongists and Armstrongist fellowships (it is a free country, after all). What I do care about is that people are feeling bound to a faith tradition – that is, Armstrongism – which bases its authority over adherents on a historically invalid claim and fundamentally non-objective means of establishing ministerial legitimacy. Subjective and intuitive evaluations, being subject to various human carnal-minded influences, cannot conclusively indicate a minister possesses the one OBJECTIVELY DEMONSTRABLE credential Armstrongism says is essential for legitimate ministerial authority: an unbroken chain of valid ordinations.  

Please understand. I was an Armstrongist (WCG 1988-95; UCG 1995-2000; ICG 2000-01), as you are now. I do know what you believe. I understand your take on John 6:44, et al. I understand how powerful it is believing that you have been given a special opening to knowledge and perceptive discernment. But I will put this to you: Jeremiah 17:9 - “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it.”

And thus, I will confront its adherents with the historical reality and the scriptural precedent laid out here. 

____

THE QUESTION OF AUTHORITY 

I know that the Armstrong faith tradition’s strong emphasis on “government” will raise issues of “authority” to do this. While any honest Armstrong minister would look at this information and set himself aside, not all will.

For those so concerned, consider: In the biblical precedent discussed, it is not a priestly power that does it. It is Nehemiah, a civil governor appointed by the proverbial “powers that be.” Thus by the precedent one cannot argue that it lies with the “ministry” to do so. Authorities OUTSIDE the ministry can do it.

Now in America, we have no “Nehemiah” authorized to set aside the ministry of a church (Amendments 1 and 14 United States Constitution; and state analogs). And no doubt, recalcitrant ministers would assert that factor to claim that there is no earthly  entity – “no controlling legal authority,” some might say – to set them aside, and thus members are bound to them. In a certain manner of speaking, they would be arguing that the First Amendment exempts the Armstrongist faith tradition from the 13th Amendment.

(For those lacking in their civics education, that latter amendment is the one forbidding people being held in slavery – “bonded servitude” – to other humans. Research “undue influence“ to find out what this might do to the wills of Armstrongists leaving money to their church.)

Yet, that very Constitution which precludes the government from doing so does indeed name the earthly entity authorized to do so. Under Amendment 10, powers not given to the federal government and denied to the state government rest with “THE PEOPLE.” It rests with each of you as individuals whether or not to follow the biblical precedent. Many of you did essentially that in leaving WCG (for whatever reason). It is within your power, and this time justified by a very direct biblical precedent. 

 

____

If you take these ministers – as sincere and well-meaning as they may be – and set them aside by virtue of facts and scriptural precedent, they are set aside. You have biblical basis. But if you conclude not to do so, please just be publicly honest, and acknowledge that your belief in Armstrongism’s “True Church” claim is simply following a man and your intuitive conclusion not established by facts. Those hearing your religion’s message deserve to hear that as well.

The decision rests with you.

What I present to you is not my opinion or my specific doctrinal conclusions. It is historical fact and scriptural and legal precepts and precedent. It is my hope that you will look into this matter and consider it objectively. A deceived man does not know he is deceived. No matter how deeply you intuitively believe something, it can still be wrong. If you look at this objectively, you will understand. 

Contact me on TruthSocial at @LTWalker03 to respond.

===

NOTE: If an Armstrongist minister ever denies the ordinational succession claim and/or its centrality to the defining and operation of their supposed “True Church,” ask him if there is even a  serious possibility that his church might possibly recognize as a “true” minister someone claiming to be a minister, but definitely without such succession. If he says that it is at all possible, then the hold on members that the Armstrongist ministry claims is gone. His church will be no better than any other Christian denomination. Anyone will be free to leave their current church and be declared a “minister,” and members will be free to follow him or any other professed minister  – or none at all. The Armstrongist minister and his church will have no justification on those grounds for denouncing the new “fellowship.” On the other hand, if he says that there is no chance that the succession-free minister would be so recognized, then he is essentially yielding the point.

END OF PRIMARY ARTICLE

=========================

=========================

=========================

=========================

=========================

=========================

APPENDIXES AND SUCH:

Bob Thiel, known in the early days after 1995 as “COGwriter,” has reacted to the posting of the above on the Banned by HWA site. My responses posted as comments on their post about his response:

A.

Nice of him to confirm my definition of “Armstrongism.” That said…

1. The closest thing to a substantive “opinion” so offered in my article is the jurisprudential conclusion. None of it depends on my own suspicions or personal guesswork. (If someone doesn’t like my characterizations of certain things, so be it.)
2. Who ordained Herbert Armstrong? Until someone in can conclusively answer that question, the confirmed succession going back stops at 1931. (And then we will have to track back from there.)

And

B. 

I should add the obvious: The very fact that he is having to continue research to definitively show the alleged succession demonstrates the accuracy of the jurisprudential conclusion: There being no conclusive, verified succession laid out, the Armstrongist ministry is at this point in time to be considered set aside in ministerial power and function per the Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7 precedent. It’s not a matter of whether the succession in actual fact exists. It’s a matter of whether it can be shown, verified, and proven. And by his own account, it has not been.

—-

More from comments on the two BBH postings:

—-

——-

—-

Discussion on Edge Induced Cohesion: https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2025/04/28/white-paper-proposals-for-educating-young-people-in-the-united-church-of-god-about-herbert-w-armstrongs-importance-to-church-beliefs-and-practices/#comment-94256

Technical issues are currently making it difficult to post on there. I am preserving here my latest response, awaiting moderation. 

NOTATION FOR THE RECORD: It is possible the operator has changed the settings, so as to moderate comments. I am not accusing him of anything, even though this was done right in the middle of a running discussion.  It is also possible my account was hacked, based on having to change my password and certain other odd difficulties. In any case, the substance is preserved here for anybody following that conversation.

—-

That blog seems back to normal. Latest reply has been posted.

Another Albright article. Seems to attempt to bypass Ezra/Nehemiah precedent by not viewing ministry as “priesthood.”  https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2025/05/17/white-paper-succession-in-the-melchizedek-priesthood-a-biblical-analysis-in-contrast-to-levitical-and-roman-catholic-models/#comment-94308

My reply:

Simply saying, “But the ministry isn’t a priesthood,” does not nullify the precedent value of Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7 as a test of your ministry’s identity claim. The fact that your church and most churches of the Armstrong tradition have a ministerial SUCCESSION theory and system essentially identical to a self-acknowledged priesthood and using Levitical typology is what makes the “Levitical precedent,” as you termed it only a few weeks ago, applicable. Precedents apply in “same or similar circumstances.” The practical similarities (still) vastly outway any differences. What’s more, under your approach here, the ministry has a much harder time justifying using Third Tithe as they have in the past.

As I said in my writeup:

“Even attempting to deny the direct applicability of the scriptural example [Ezra/Nehemiah] (and thus losing much of the power and prestige in the ministry gained by the Levitical typology), the precedent sets the parallel in establishing the burden of proof for succession claims. Think about it. If a woman from your past claimed her child was the result of a union between the two of you, you would not simply accept her claim. You would demand affirmative proof that the child was yours. How much more important than the genealogy of a single individual is being sure that the doctrinal authority you believe you are bound to is the correct one?”

https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2025/03/reference-to-followers-of-armstrongism.html?m=0

— 

And of course, it gets you no closer to defending the Armstrong church tradition’s ministerial succession claim upon which its “institutional claims to exclusive authority” as the “one True Church” are dependent. (Lose that succession, and you’re just another Christian church/faith tradition that has popped up over the past two millennia, not fundamentally different than Seventh Day Baptists or Presbyterians.) You still don’t even know who ordained Armstrong himself.

Replies to me:

1. In the twentieth century Herbert Armstrong continued in the great tradition of men that God raised up to revive His Work.  He was ordained the 40th of 70 elders. Mr Armstrong explained in his Autobiography that he received his ordination certificate signed by O J Runcorn and I E Curtis (2nd March 1931) (refer to chapter 24 of Armstrong’s Autobiography for further details):

“I have in my old files my Ministerial License Certificate, which is reproduced in this autobiography, dated March 2, 1932, and signed by O. J. Runcorn as President, and Mrs. I. E. Curtis as Secretary. This was almost a year after I was ordained — probably my second certificate.”

The certificate states:  “This official document is to certify that H.W. Armstrong is a recognized licensed minister, and apostle of the true primitive faith, that he has labored for Jesus, and among this people for the required period before being recognized in this capacity…”

2. In 1931 Mr Armstrong was ordained an elder of the Church God (Seventh Day) (based in Stanberry, Missouri) by laying on of hands of the presbytery and members. He joined with the breakaway group based at Salem, West Virginia in 1933 and continued as an elder until his credentials were revoked in 1937 over two matters: holy day observance, and ‘British-Israelism’.

The tradition in the 1920s and 1930s was for both elders and members together laying hands on the person being ordained. This occurred with Mr Armstrong at that time:

“It was decided by the officers of the Conference that on the next all-day meeting I was to be ordained. I shall never forget that moment of my ordination. The meeting was being held outdoors. I do not remember where–except it was in the general rural area of Jefferson. I do not remember other circumstances. But I do remember the ordination itself. It was one of those once-in-a-lifetime experiences like being married, and being baptized. Only this seemed to me to be the most momentous event of my entire life. All the brethren–as many as could get their hands through to my head–laid their hands on me–on my head, my shoulders, my chest and my back.” (Autobiography of Herbert W Armstrong (1986 edition), pp. 426-427). [emphasis mine]

My reply: having trouble posting it there, and having some trouble here as well.

1. His 40 of 70 appointment was a selection by lots, not an ordination.
   
2. The certificate does not state who actually laid hands on him. In my blogged writeup, I link to his 1960 article where he says LOOH is essential to being a “true” minister.
3. “Laying on of hands by the presbytery” is simply his claim – bearing witness of himself. Plus, given the limits of the still-developing Duggerite “True Church” concept at that time, it is not frankly guaranteed by that statement that the “presbytery“ involved was CG7, or even Sabbatarian. Limiting the pool of possible “true Christians” to Sabbatarians did not really begin until the 1950s. It took Armstrong’s development of his John 6:44, et al, selective “calling” doctrine to justify writing off so many Christian-professing people. And CG7 never did adopt that doctrine. (Correct me if wrong.)
4. Note the 1973 and 1986 versions of the Autobiography make no mention whatsoever of ministry even being there. Thus, it is possible, given that CG7-Oregon had NO ministry there full-time (as Armstrong often emphasized) and CG7 practice of the time, according to you, ShareGive, involved lay members taking such a part, that it was lay members only involved.
5. Despite Point 4, I will throw you a bone. While those two versions describe it that way, the original PT serial version and the 1967 codex version do mention ministers! Elder Taylor, the former SDA minister hired by Oregon Conference to do preaching for them (but apparently never CG7-ordained, given Armstrong’s statement that the conference had no regular ministers), along with “one or two other ministers.” Nothing is said identifying those ministers. And given the non-exclusivity of Dugger’s theory at the time (the extent to which it was accepted in the church being debatable – Dugger was not the doctrinal tyrant which Armstrong would later be), they could theoretically have been visiting Protestant ministers. (I’ve long wondered if maybe one was the Baptist minister who baptized Armstrong. Just a theory.) Armstrong also changed the story behind his ordination from Taylor being his champion for it to Taylor having Armstrong pushed upon him by the Conference board. This is all quite suspicious, omitting reference to the key personnel of the ordinational event.
6. Thus, it is entirely possible that Armstrong’s ordination did not involve CG7 ministers at all. It is possible that given Armstrong’s development of the importance of succession by the time he was riding his autobiography, he decided to, shall we say, fabricate the presence of at least the “one or two other ministers.” He couldn’t rely on Taylor as a source of “true succession,” because that would put the “True Church” succession extending into SDA well into the 20th century. That would throw a big wrench into the machinery of his exclusive “True Church” claim. (Compare Hoeh claiming that ministers who joined the Seventh Day Baptist [Conference] lost their ability to pass on the succession at that moment.)
7. It is possible that the 1973 edit is a genuine correction based on sound information. The 1967 book would’ve aroused more interest than the PT articles. Some CG7 members with some information may actually have “corrected” Armstrong about his depiction of the event. There’s at least one other major correction in the 1973 version – namely, moving the “converted Jew” event from 1927 to 1937. That change seems genuine and sincere, with Armstrong simply misremembering the year in the earlier versions. The problem is, if the editing out of ministry at his ordination is an accurate correcting of the picture, then he had no ministry at his ordination. Bye-bye, “True Church.”
8. In any case, simply having a CG7 minister involved would not prove the “True Church” succession. Without knowing who actually did it, it was no way to trace,m whether or not that individual or individuals actually have an all-Sabbatarian ordinational lineage. As I say in my writeup: “Church of God (Seventh Day) history shows that the early ministers of that denomination held ordinations from mainstream non-Sabbatarian protestant churches. CG7’s founders were simply ministers who became involved in the Millerite/Adventist movement and adopted seventh-day Sabbatarianism. Few if any came in as Sabbatarians. The same can be said of most of the lay members. They were not “rebaptized” upon this change in their practice. The whole claim of such a lineage preceding the formation of what became CG7 did not exist until the 1920s. Dugger himself claimed in a 1926 article that his “first insight” on the idea came from an event in 1922...” (This was the “Ethiopian prince” encounter.)
9. And so, my question remains: What is the crucial ordinational succession and lineage of Herbert Armstrong, without which he fails any reasonable test of his “True Church”? 

Reply to me:

See

My reply (still not getting everything posted; I suspect censoring):

(Regarding Point 1: Please provide dates, locations, and the names of the elders involved in the literal performing of that Supposed second ordination of Herbert Armstrong. Then provide the ordinational background of those elders. And then those elders. Yada-yada-yada, back to the original apostles. If you can do that for at least one unbroken chain, without having to rely on non-ministers and non-Sabbatarians, you may well have a case for Armstrongism against my case here.) 

You talk to me about a failure to disprove Armstrongist doctrines. I am only challenging one doctrine here, and that is one which you yourself are challenging: The biggest Armstrong doctrine short of the Sabbath, probably even bigger than Armstrong himself. You are challenging the “True Church.”

You ignore Point 8 because it is the real core history of the Andrew Dugger “Church of God” and rebuts any presumption of  the 1900-year-long Sabbatarian “True Church” ordinational succession which an Armstrong apologist might claim. Then on Point 9 you express this fatal sentence: “As have stressed for many years, a new Work or era does not have to have major links, if any, to a previous era.” “[I]f any”? Adding those two little words gives it the meaning that a/the “True Church” could literally pop up out of anywhere spontaneously (from the earthly/human standpoint).

From my first email to you over a year ago:

—

“I did note that you offered an alternative view, namely, that there are periodic arisings blessed leaders or operations. Such an idea is fundamentally different from the “True Church” claim upon which the Armstrong-connected tradition is built. Think about it. You believed in the movement based on one claim, and with that claim being discredited, you are attempting to create a new argument for it. Yet you have no independent objective basis for the underlying preconception that it is, somehow the “true” Christian tradition.” 

—

Think about that Armstrongist minister who took umbrage at your positing that there was no outside (Sabbatarian) connection to Taiping Sabbatarianism. “[H]ow do you know that they did not come into contact with a  Sabbath keeping minister who taught their fathers/grandfathers about God's way of Life?” he asked. 

Think about why that would concern him. Without putting words in his mouth, the mere concept of such a thing as the Taiping Sabbatarianism arising without some sort of connection to a greater history brings up the possibility that the Armstrong tradition may have a similar, disconnected history (at least, as far as ordination is concerned). If members come to see that, then the Armstrong ministry loses its traditional psychological leverage to force an Armstrongist questioning something to stay in that faith tradition – regardless of corruption, abuse, or doctrinal/biblical error. 

Think about it. By the alternate take you are actually endorsing, theoretically ANY religious movement – particularly a Sabbatarian Christian movement – of any origin led by anybody could be the proverbial “next big thing” in “true Christianity.” A bunch of lay members could break off and start their own church with doctrinal variances, and it would have to be viewed as just as possibly legitimate as Armstrong’s, with no  disfellowshippings or disparagings simply for dissenting and separating. Who would you or anybody else in Armstrongism be to judge? They could even ordain their own ministers from among themselves without involvement of pre-existing ones, since a “true” minister would need not have that pure succession going back two millennia. The Armstrong faith tradition would atomize.

You can believe anything else you want without believing the Armstrong tradition is the exclusive “True Church.” You have in fact overturned the reasonableness of that claim. It’s up to you to decide if you’re going to be honest and open with yourself and your brethren. That should be worth your time.

===================

Response to a Banned By HWA post about Bob Thiel’s latest attempt to claim apostolic succession, emailed to :

Another attempt to defend the succession claim. Nathan Albright, the fellow who produced Armstrong “Heritage Day” for Aaron, Dean and UCG, recently posted what appears to be nothing more than an effort to push back on my Ezra 2/Nehemiah 7 precedent article (link at bottom). He criticizes “apostolic succession” in the Catholic Church by positing that the NT ministry is not a “priesthood.” He doesn’t actually deny ordinational succession for his ministry, but a casual reader might be forgiven for thinking he saying that. I replied that such a terminology change does not nullify the precedent when the practical system is essentially the same.

Also on there, I tangled with an Armstrong historian using the name “ShareGive.” I cited some of his in my writeup to demonstrate the lack of verifiable succession. He attempted to push back on what I said, and in the process, Albright stopped approving my responses to him. Yet ShareGive was allowed to continue posting. Unexpected, but of course not all that surprising. 

ShareGive bailed out, claiming lack of time. He did, though, make a point that my backfire on him. He claimed that Armstrong was subsequently ordained again by the Salem CG7 when they do his name for “the 70.” In a subsequent email to ShareGive, I said this (one typo corrected here): 

— 

“I really would like verification of the Point 1 one-of-the-70 ordination of Armstrong. He doesn’t mention it at all in his autobiography, and very much downplays what was involved in his connection to the Salem group. He says he got picked as one of the 70, and he sent them reports. If that ordination actually happened, then it would support a side-theory of mine that Armstrong omitted referencing ministers and (CORRECTION: “in”) his original 1931 ordination because he wanted to downplay in readers’ eyes his connection to CG7 and make his ministry look like it fell out of Heaven to build up his power and prestige among his followers. Much like how he falsely denied CG7 membership and completely omitted his 1930 CG7 re-baptism by Elder Stith.

It’s amazing how often pro-Armstrong arguments end up having to revise Armstrong’s on rendition of history. In the 1931 baptism case, you actually have to hope he was a self-important jerk, because otherwise his omission kills his credibility (and succession claim).

Thank you in advance.”

His response via email was simply to ask for my evidence of the 1930 Stith baptism of Armstrong (discussed below). 

—————-

RELATED MATTER: 23 MAY 2025: Currently in a running discussion with the Australian Armstrong historian named above about Herbert Armstrong actually being baptized in 1930 by CG7 Elder Stith. He of course denies it, yet I found on his own website this picture of a page from the May-June 2020 UCG “United News” publication hardcopy edition: https://www.friendsofsabbath.org/ABC/Pioneers&Researchers/HL%20Hoeh%20papers/Remembering%20%20Humble%20Beginnings,%20United%20News,%20May-June%202020.pdf

UCG edited their online editions to delete both the pertinent picture and related caption, and the text discussing the matter. Somebody realized they flubbed up really bad. I think it’s both hilarious and shameful at the same time. Hilarious that they are that stupid, and shameful that they are withholding material information from their members and readers.

https://www.ucg.org/members/united-news/united-news-may-june-2020/remembering-humble-beginnings

Also: https://legacy.ucg.org/members/united-news/remembering-humble-beginnings

I warned him not to delete it, lest he look suspicious. I also said, among other things:

“There are[CORRECTION: is] a huge doctrine affected by the issue of the 1930 baptism — Armstrong’s entire status. Armstrong came to use baptism to psychologically hold people to RCG/WCG. If you talked to a minister about a problem in the church, expressing the possibility of leaving, they were told that once you were an actual “member” of a church, you could not leave. When Armstrong leaving CG7 would be pointed out, the response was that Armstrong was “never actually a member” of CG7 (even though, just as according to you CG7 always had an elder present at an ordination, CG7 also did not ordain nonmembers). However, you were a member of WCG by virtue of the baptism. Neat, huh? (Of course, somehow CG7 members could leave that church, no problem. It’s a sub-theory of mine that he introduced LOOH as standard so that he would have something to do to such people in order to establish a psychological “membership” claim over them.) The 1930 baptism would destroy this line. Hence his motive, and covering it up.

“Thus one can argue that the “great work” done by Armstrong was actually done by a fraud  — holding members’ tithe attendance under false pretenses. The legal term is “undue influence.”

…

“I wonder how [Rex] Sexton feels knowing this little wrinkle in the story of his religion, and seeing it withheld from the members of his church rather than confronted. I’ve long told people that one’s faith is the last context in which you should lie. I get lying for a politician to get votes. I get lying for a used car salesman to get a sale. I get lying for a guy at a pub to get… you know. I even get lying to hide embarrassment. But when you lie about something for which you will most certainly face the strictest divine judgment – faith itself – it makes no sense. Those other things can be done even if the means are false. Obtaining eternal salvation does not strike me the same way.”

——-

My fave page from Mystery of the Ages put here for reference: