Introduction

We present here an excerpt from an article by writer and Living Church of God member Robert Thiel. We obtained this article on May 22, 2010 from www.cogwriter.com. We include our comments.

Because Mr. Thiel might feel inclined to change his article in light of our comments, we have preserverd his entire article as we found it on May 22, 2010 here.

The original version was published under a similar title in The Journal: News of the Churches of God, on Feb. 28, 2003. The difference between the 2003 and 2010 versions, according to Thiel, are minor.

Thiel: Accusation No. 12: HWA [Herbert W. Armstrong] was forgetful, and he was a plagiarist.

Comment: We are all forgetful, but is that really the point? We discuss below whether that is a logical explanation for plagiarism. The accuastion against Mr Armstrong is deliberate plagiarism, not plagiarism through forgetfulness. Let's not confuse the two. The difference should be clear, so we wonder if Thiel is confusing the two on purpose to draw attention away from the prospect of deliberate fraud on the part of Armstrong.

What does Mr. Thiel think that Armstrong forgot? Is he suggesting that Armstrong forgot where he got the material, or that he knew where he got it but forgot to mention his sources to the reader? Are either of these likely? (See below).

Thiel: Yes, HWA could be forgetful. After reading various editions of HWA's United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy and J.H. Allen's book Jacob's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright, I do not agree that he was guilty of plagiarizing Allen's book.

Comment: Perhaps Thiel does not know what plagiarism is. What definition of plagiarism is he using? He does not provide one. Would Thiel come to the same conclusion after reading a proper definition of plagiarism and reviewing the information on this site?

Thiel: Although I believe HWA got certain ideas about this subject from Mr. Allen and, from what I have heard, the first edition of US&BC [The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy], which I have not seen, was much closer to Allen's work, I also believe HWA simply comes to conclusions different from Allen's in too many instances for any plagiarism charge to hold water, especially in HWA's later editions.

Comment: Thiel says Armstrong read Allen's book but only got "certain ideas" from Allen. This greatly downplays the many similarities between the books.

How does Thiel know which ideas Armstrong got from Allen? Where and when did Armstrong get the others? Are we to believe that Armstrong read Allen's book, forgot most of it, and then rediscovered it through a combination of his own bible study and divine revelation?

Further, coming to different conclusions has nothing to do with whether plagiarism occured. For example, one cannot side-step allegations of plagiarism by copying 90% (or whatever) of a book and then changing the conclusions.

Thiel: Of course, if HWA did make significant use of Allen's work, then he should have credited Allen, even if his use of this work falls short of plagiarism.

Comment: Is Thiel trying to suggest that the overlap between the books is not significant? That would be ridiculous.

Does Thiel think Armstrong read Allen's book after Armstrong already knew about British-Israelism? If so, how does Thiel know that?

Does he think Armstrong got the material from a source other than Allen? If so, what source, and why didn't Armstrong give credit to that source?

Technically, if Armstrong made use of work by Allen or others, even if not significant, he should have credited his sources, and failure to do so was plagiarism. Paraphrasing a single paragraph (without giving credit) is plagiarism. Even copying one idea (without giving credit) could be plagiarism. The more he got from Allen and perhaps other existing sources, the worse the plagiarism. The point is that the evidence suggests that he got a great deal of information about British-Israelism from existing sources, most likely Allen, and did not give credit to those sources.

Thiel: HWA paraphrased more than he should have, but, since he, along with his wife, Loma, was the entire editorial and publish staff for a while, it is understandable that they could have become careless in this regard.

Comment: If he took Allen's words and paraphrased them, then he plagiarized them, because paraphrasing (without giving credit to the source) is plagiarism. Remember that one method of plagiarizing is using a "close imitation" of the language of another author.

So Thiel actually admits Armstrong plagiarized, but doesn't call it plagiarism.

Also, by saying he paraphrased "more than he should have" one wonders how much he "should have" paraphrased. I.e. how much plagiarism does Thiel think is acceptable? Plagiarism is plagiarism.

Actually, if Armstrong gave full credit to his sources he could have paraphrased as much as he wanted to. So the real issue is not how much he paraphrased or how many ideas he copied but his failure to give credit to his sources.

Thiel: Regarding Has Time Been Lost?, it appears that this booklet was quite similar to a booklet originally produced by the Church of God (Seventh Day) [CG7]. According to an article by Norman Edwards (Servant's News, November 1998), the CG7 did not have a copyright notice on it when it published it. Edwards also wrote,

The two booklets are word-for-word identical in about half of the places. Armstrong did add some things, but in many places he simply dropped out information--such as the 1910 dates of encyclopedias which, if included, would make the booklet look 'old' (see p. 24).

Comment: In the past, if something was published without a copyright notice, people could copy it and adapt it legally. Even then, I doubt if it was legal for them to put their name on it as the author or sole author. But even if it was legal, it was wrong, even then, from an ethical point of view.

Armstrong said he was an apostle, so he should be held to higher standards than the weak laws that might have been in effect when he started his ministry. Today one does not even need a copyright notice in many countries (though it's a good idea to have one) because writings are automatically copyrighted to protect the author's rights.

Herbert Armstrong's 1945 version of The United States and Britain in Prophecy was not copyrighted. But I don't think he or his followers would have been very happy if some other church copied it, put their name on it, and made no mention of Armstrong. Some of Armstrong's followers might even be outraged at such a thing. So why is it such a light thing if Armstrong does it?

But let's suppose that Armstrong rewrote the booklet without breaking any laws.

Yet if he did in fact remove material that made the booklet look old, why did he do so? Was this being deceitful? What if anything, did he intend to hide? Was it because his readers would know he did not start his ministry until well after 1910? Would they then wonder if he had actually wrote the booklet himself? Was he trying to mislead people into thinking he discovered this information himself?

Thiel: I think it is likely that either HWA did not recall that he did not write much of this particular booklet or some of his staff made an improper assumption.

Comment: First, note that Thiel believes Armstrong "did not write much of" the booklet.

Whether Armstrong forgot what happened decades later is not the main point. He must have known what he was doing at the time he rewrote it and put his name on it. The real question is why he did that in the first place.

If someone on his staff assumed he wrote it and just put his name on it, why didn't Armstrong ever correct that error?

How could someone on his staff make that mistake if Armstrong had given proper credit (by today's standards) by citing his source (Church of God, Seventh Day) in the text, or in footnotes, or at the front or back of the booklet? Attempting to shift the blame to the staff (without any evidence) is not very convincing, in my view.

Also, if it happened when Armstrong and his wife were the entire staff, then this points the finger right back at the Armstrongs.

Note that Armstrong's "The Proof of the Bible" is similar to part of "Prophecy Speaks" which was copyrighted. It was copyrighted in 1933 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association. But Armstrong did not give credit to the author of "Prophecy Speaks".

The evidence on this site indicates that there are at least three specific works that Armstrong used but failed to give credit to. So we need to look at the broader picture, not just one work that was not copyrighted. The other two were copyrighted.

Furthermore, if Craig White is correct about where Mr Armstrong got his information (see here), then Armstrong got a great many doctrines from existing sources without giving them credit. Why didn't he tell church members he did not originate these doctrines? Remember that using other people's ideas without giving them credit is plagiarism. Would it be an exaggeration to say his ministry rife with plagiarism?

Craig White, like Thiel, denies that Armstrong plagiarized. Here is what White says:

I recall in a 1980 Bible study when Mr Armstrong publicly stated that he had read Allen's work on Judah's Sceptre and Joseph's Birthright. And having read Allen's work, I cannot fathom where the supposed plagiarism may be found. Rather, it served more of an outline or template for his book The United States and British Commonwealth in Prophecy. Given that the writing style was radically different to Allen's; many conclusions were different; and that he emphasized the Sabbath, plagiarism cannot be pinned on him at all. (White, p.5)

Well, if Allen's book was an outline for Armstrong's book, then Armstrong plagiarized from Allen.

Like Thiel, White is obviously working from a completely false concept of what plagiarism is. But White's own research, if true, proves Armstrong plagiarized from Allen and many other sources as well.

Thiel: As a writer I can verify that the more you write the less you remember about what you actually did write.

Comment: Mr Armstrong must have known what he was doing when he did it.

As a writer, Thiel should know what plagiarism is and that it is considered theft and deception, and that it is not acceptable. As a writer Thiel should know that Armstrong could have just quoted Allen instead of paraphrasing him. So why didn't he?

If Craig White's research is correct about where Armstrong got his information (see the chart on pp. 60-62 of White's paper), are we to believe that Armstrong got almost all his doctrines from other sources, yet all through his ministry of over 50 years he just forgot to give them credit?

Thiel: I think a factor in HWA's failure to properly credit other sources was his lack of formal education.

Comment: Here Thiel essentially admits Armstrong failed to credit his sources. He presents no evidence that Armstrong's lack of formal education was the reason. Is that just what he wants to believe?

Thiel: Even though he was a naturally talented writer, he was not privy to formal training that would have instilled in him the highest regard for properly crediting other people's works.

Comment: In other words, Thiel wants us to believe that Armstrong took Allen's book, paraphrased from it, and didn't know he was supposed to do so much as mention Allen's name in the text, in a footnote, or even in a bibliography. It that likely? Was Armstrong that uninformed? Didn't Armstrong say he had the equivalent of a degree through his own rigorous self-study program, which was guided by his knowledgeable uncle?

Even if he didn't know at the beginning, didn't someone eventually tell him he should give credit to Allen? As time went on he was surrounded by many smart and highly educated people, some of whom likely would (or should) have told him. Why didn't he do it then?

Perhaps the real reason Armstrong did not give credit is that he wanted to pass it off as revelation from God to him personally. That would support his claim to be an apostle, along with all the authority that goes with that office.

Summary: In summary, aside from using a faulty concept of plagiarism to deny that Armstrong plagiaried, Thiel basically offers two excuses for the apparent plagiarism. Thiel cannot prove either of them.

The first excuse is forgetfulness. But even if Armstrong could have forgotten say 40 or 50 years later (a debatable assertion), that is not the point. The question is whether Armstrong forget where he got the information between the time he read his sources and the time he wrote the first version of his works which were based on those sources.

And if Armstrong was so forgetful, did he ever forget to put his own name on the material that he paraphrased from others?

Would the forgetfulness excuse be accepted in school if a student wrote a paper on British-Israelism, and did not cite any sources? What if the student when accused of plagiarism said, "I just forget to mention in my paper that I paraphrased parts of it from a book I read, got some ideas from, and used as an outline for my paper."

What if the student said, "Wow, my paper has a lot of similarities with that book on British-Israelism. I guess it slipped my mind that I read the book. When I handed in the paper, I thought I did it all myself."

Should a teacher accept excuses like that?

Note that according to Thiel, forgetfulness and plagiarism are part of the same accusation, which he calls "Accusation No. 12". Is Thiel suggesting that the accusation (plagiarism) and the excuse for it (forgetfulness) are one and the same? If so, this seems to be an attempt to clear Armstrong of any wrong motives right from the start.

At the risk or repeating myself, the real accusation against Armstrong is plagiarism, not forgetfulness. Forgetfulness is what Thiel offers as the explanation/excuse for the plagiarism. Thiel seems to be saying people are accusing Armstrong of being forgetful (i.e. not doing it on purpose) when in fact they are accusing him of knowingly plagiarizing (doing it on purpose).

We hope that the reader notices the difference between Thiel's approach and the one we take on this site. On this site we don't expect the reader to believe anything without proper proof. Thiel, on the other hand, offers the reader excuses without providing evidence to back them up. He suggests, without any proof or evidence whatsoever, that Armstrong just forgot, that someone unknown person on his staff "made an improper assumption," etc. In other words, he seems to be making stuff up, right out of thin air. Yet he has the audacity (?) to call his article "15 Accusations and Truthful Responses about Herbert W. Armstrong."

Conclusion: Thiel offers several reasons to exonerate Armstrong, but we don't find them persuasive.

Note: Several organizations that split off from the WCG (Worldwide Church of God) now publish books on British-Israelism similar to the ones by John Allen and Herbert Armstrong. Do these churches properly credit their sources? If not, why not? If they credit Armstrong, shouldn't they credit Allen also, since he seems to be the real source for much of Armstrong's book?

Note: According to the paper (available on this site) by Ralph Orr, Armstrong's book was based on an earlier manuscript of his in which he actually quoted from Allen more than once. If true, how is it possible that Armstrong forgot where he got the information? How could he not notice the references to Allen when he condensed his manuscript into the book?

The reader can find Orr's paper here (.doc file) or obtain it by request directly from Grace Communion International. See endnote 54.