Some good comments on various blogs lately. Two in particular worth mentioning tonight:Stan Gardner's AR blog: Stan takes a look at the by-laws over at the independent Big Sandy church as they relate to the current situation there, then moves on - using some of the documentation available on Bill's Ekklesia site - to ask some interesting questions about WCG's (including specific ones for Bob Thiel and Roderick Meredith).
Questions to Bob Thiel: As you are an apologist for Armstrong, Ambassador Reports would be interested in hearing if you have any facts on how the 5,051 members noted allegedly voted for this 1968 resolution. Where did this vote occur? How were the votes counted? Prove Armstrong didn't lie, falsify and perjure himself about this church member vote.
Questions for Roderick Meredith: Were you sitting as a director on the Radio corporate board at this meeting Jan. 5, 1968? Can you then explain how the mysterious 5,051 thousand member vote is in fact legitimate and proper, in supporting your own director's vote, in favor of the board resolution your own boss may have falsified?
Stan has also given his blog a makeover, so well worth checking out if you haven't dropped in for a while.
James Pate's Musings: And now for something completely different: for all those fellow Trekkies out there a few thoughts on the Star Trek Voyager episode Barge of the Dead. It was certainly a memorable show, if one of the "darker" ones.
34 comments:
I do remember when the name change happened.
It was announced casually in services – ‘Oh way the way, did you know that we have changed our name. We are now the “Worldwide Church of God”’, followed by bits about it better reflecting our ‘worldwide work’.
Had I been asked, I would have definitely voted for the change, as I considered attending something called the ‘Radio Church of God’ an unnecessary embarrassment, so Worldwide was a definite improvement.
I would have been a non-runner for voting anyway, as (1) I was not baptised at the time, and (2) I was living in the UK, so obviously would not be consulted on such matters.
I don’t know what did happen. Assuming that a meeting did not take place, probably the reasoning would be – ‘If we did hold a meeting, and everybody knew what HWA wanted, they are all going to vote for the change anyway, so why bother having a meeting’. That was the impression I had of how things were often done. i.e. ‘This is God’s Church, so we don’t need to bother with “worldly” rules and regulations’.
Of course I could be proved wrong, but I would be surprised. Incidentally, I wonder why it is not stated how many voted against the resolution. Do we assume not a single person dissented?
Gavin,
Thanks for bringing up the spotlight on COG governance issues - or, as some put it - "God's Government".
A couple of quick, off the cuff observations on the original formation of the COG legal entities to today:
Armstrong began in Oregon forming an unincorporated church Association.
When he moved to Pasadena, in 1946 he formed the California Radio Church of God corporation (now Worldwide) as the which is legally completely subordinate to the still existing unincorporated church Association with its Board of Elders. The name Radio Church of God was changed in 1968 to Worldwide Church of God.
Prior to the formation of the 1946 corporation, Armstrong's view of how the church would be structured changed over time - as Ekklesia's has HWA's 1939 Article against top-down government.
The 1946 Radio Constitution crystalizes his thinking on Radio COG governance in 1946. Changes to the Radio constitution were made over time giving HWA greater and greater power. Also unseen changes to the bylaws, including the voting procedures for members. Even the definition of a voting member.
With that, I must depart for now. More later tonight.
Stan
Extract from Stan's Blog.
>>>The problem is, the entire member vote mentioned in the board of directors resolution of the church corporation filed may have been completely falsified by Herbert W. Armstrong!<<<
I believe it is important to note the phrase, "may have been completely falsified." This phrase clearly indicates that those who are accusing Mr. Armstrong of lying or filing false documents, don't really have any hard evidence to support their baseless allegations.
This further, but unsuccessful, attempt to discredit God's servant, could be described as, scraping the bottom of the barrel.
With the world facing financial melt down; divorce at record levels; gangs roaming our streets; law enforcement agencies at their wits end, trying to combat wanton lawlessness: alcohol related diseases, drunkenness; teenage pregnancy and abortion consuming a large amount of our nation's health budget, someone thinks it is productive and helpful to post slanderous allegations against Mr. Armstrong, about events that are over 40 years old. Wow!
How do we know that a vote was not taken in each local congregation, and the results were unanimous - as it was most likely to be?
Tom wrote,
"...those who are accusing Mr. Armstrong of lying or filing false documents, don't really have any hard evidence to support their baseless allegations."
Oh! So Tom asserts that the "allegations" are "baseless"?
You KNOW otherwise, Tom? You have hard evidence that the "allegations" are "baseless", Tom?!
Please share your hard evidence, Tom!
Please don't use faulty "logic", such as saying:
"I learned God's Truth from MISTER Armstrong, and...
God would not use a liar or filer of false documents to teach His Truth...
Therefore, MISTER Armstrong could not be a man who lied or filed false documents!"
And the beat goes on: "How do we know that a vote was not taken in each local congregation, and the results were unanimous - as it was most likely to be?"
I know it didn't happen because I was there at the time. No vote was taken, we were just informed after the fact. If you have proof that a vote was taken, (and I am willing to take your word for it Tom, if you actually participated in such a vote) then please present it. If you can't do that then you are just making unfounded assumptions, which is what you so often accuse others of doing.
PS: I am not posting under an alias, which you would know if you paid attention. I made a specific post some time back announcing that I was changing my name from Bob to Baashabob to avoid confusion among the several Bobs that post here.
BTW, did Stan actually make "allegations", as Tom posits?
I just thought that Stan was trying to understand what went on, and get further facts.
And, I couldn't help but notice Tom's use of the tried-and-true brainwashed-cultist methods of attacking and deflecting, again.
People under the influence of all sorts of destructive cult teachings use the same methods that he likes to use.
Tom Mahon asked:
"How do we know that a vote was not taken in each local congregation, and the results were unanimous - as it was most likely to be?"
As I recall, WCG doctrine considered voting to be "demoncratic" and was expressly forbidden.
Logically, if the members were taught that it was sinful to vote, there would have been no voting to change the name of the church. Therefore any mention of a vote by the members to change the name of the church is suspect.
Thomas Munson
I can tell you for a fact that there was NO VOTE OF THE MEMBERS in the congregation that I attended.
HWA stole millions from people, not at the point of a gun. Rather with a more potent weapon, that of fear of losing eternal salvation.
The fact that HWA's alleged perjury occurred 40 years ago is of no consequence, since he is influencing people yet today.
The phrase "may have been completely falsified" indicates that the author is open to receiving evidence that such a large gathering occurred, after all had it happened there would be people alive today who would recall assembling at such a large convocation, or even filling out a proxy form. So the author is open minded, unlike another commenter to this post.
Yes, yes -- I know I'm using a handle. Bite me !!!!
A colleague said it best: "Consensus is doing exactly what I tell you to do!".
Tom Mahon said...
“I believe it is important to note the phrase, "may have been completely falsified." This phrase clearly indicates that those who are accusing Mr. Armstrong of lying or filing false documents, don't really have any hard evidence to support their baseless allegations.”
An organisation representing God should be conducted above reproach – especially when producing legal documents, as the whole reputation of the organisation is on the line.
Surely the point of highlighting this document is to verify whether or not perjury did take place, as taking a vote of the membership is something pretty much unheard of in RCG/WCG. If it happened, it would have been quite a memorable event, as was changing the Church name.
The quorum – the legal minimum number present or voting by proxy is stated as 2500, with the document stating that over 5000 actual people officially voted for the change.
I certainly never heard anything about a vote, but I was in the UK. However the constitution appears to read that every baptised member is allegeable to vote. (I wasn’t baptised, but several of my close friends were, and we did talk!).
Hard evidence that it DID happen should be easy to obtain, as so many thousands of people would be involved, and some would still be around, and I’m sure most would remember.
Hard evidence that something DIDN’T happen on the other hand, is more difficult. But if not a single person remembers it happening, then you have to query did it happen?
Those involved are not going to put in writing that they issued a perjured document - that is a criminal offence, especially with a ‘business’ with a turnover of many multiple millions.
Tom Mahon said... "How do we know that a vote was not taken in each local congregation, and the results were unanimous - as it was most likely to be?"
Voting was taught to be of the world and we were to come out of the world............ hence no vote concerning the name change was taken in our local congregation or any of the ones that we had friends and family attending.
I always understood that the thrust of the work was no longer through the radio broadcasts and as 'questeruk' mentioned it was better reflected as a "worldwide work".
Our family came to know about the church in the 1950's when my father started listening to the radio broadcasts and started getting the literature.
Again I say, voting was forbidden in the local congregations we attended.
But what went on at HDQ seems to be a different matter.
Tom Mahon said:
"How do we know that a vote was not taken in each local congregation, and the results were unanimous - as it was most likely to be?"
Tom, we know that a vote was NOT taken in each local congregation. This issue has been discussed numerous times on various message boards over the years. Not one wcg member who was attending at the time the name change was announced has ever said they recall a vote being taken in their local congregation. I was attending in Big Sandy at the time, and I can assure you that no vote was taken there.
More thoughts on the WCG vote to change the name, and perhaps proof for the Tom-tom that HWA and his cronies lied:
Those of us who considered ourselves as members back in '68 have long since discovered that we were not. Only ministers were counted as members of the corporation. So where did the 5,051 ministers come from? I don't think WCG ever had that many ministers. Even if ministers' wives were counted as members the number wouldn't be anywhere near 5,000. And just exactly where on Grove Street was a building big enough to hold 5,051 people?
Thanks for finally posting Tom's new pic on the front page. Its about time!
Bill Lussenheide, Menifee CA USA
Questeruk,
The WCG UK has separate incorporation as a registered charity in the United Kingdom.
WCG-USA corporate bylaws specifically refer to the church Association which is at the top apex of the WCG pyramid, over various WCG church-affiliated corporations and entities all around the world, including the Ambassador Colleges or University at one time.
It is Armstrong's key church Association bylaws at the top of the pyramid apex - which we have so far been unable to obtain from any source.
Stan
I think that Stan's larger point is that, in all the time we attended WCG we were never "members". That privilege went to the unincorporated association, of which little is known.
Despite Unaccountable Joe's ancient declarations to reform WCG government structure, everything has remained the same. Who today is in the unincorporated association? Reminds one of secret societies, or, forgive me, cabals organized for one purpose or another.
I would expect the leadership of a church to be honest, authentic, and transparent in their dealings with all, but especially with their membership. Sadly, this is something that WCG has yet to learn.
KMS
'...How do we know that a vote was not taken in each local congregation, and the results were unanimous - as it was most likely to be?...'
Between 1961 and 1978 there was never a member vote at the BWHQ.
By 'Member', however, I mean 'baptized member'. Only the 'ministry' - as I understand it - were true members!!!
KMS,
The question of whether or not the corporate bylaws were followed in 1968 to change the name from Radio to Worldwide is of some real significance today, in that Tkach may move to change the Worldwide name yet again to another name. If a member quorum vote was legally necessary on January 5, 1958 to adopt a new corporate name then, then why not today? Is such a quorum member vote today legally required to change the name from Worldwide to something else – such as Tkach's Grace International Communion? If a 2008 member vote on the issue is now not required for such a change from 1968, what changes have transpired in the bylaws since then? Note to Tkach: Please discuss and explain.
To consolidate his power Armstrong somewhere down the line may have put in a bylaws provision that would make the dummy board of directors the sole voting members of the corporation and the dummy board of elders the sole voting members of the parent unincorporated Association, to circumvent having any church members voting to approve amendments to the bylaws.
Of wider significance is the fact the model 1946 WCG constitution with its bylaws set the beginning stage for all of the unaccountable COG governance in all of the spinoffs seen today. Since Roderick Meredith would have cast his own director vote at that member meeting on Worldwide January 5, 1968, perhaps he knows that better than anybody else.
Stan
Vote or no vote..In my entire career as a pastor with WCG, NO ONE ever was credited with telling HWA or GTA they were mistaken, wrong or off base. They tried, made some progress and then watched as group efforts towards a balance based on practical considerations and common sense, were undone and returned to the former "HWA" opinions.
After that, no questioning, no rebuttal, no new information.
In my experience, I never heard
"I was wrong." (I did hear "we were wrong." but that was not accepting individual responsibility)
"This is not necessary."
"I am so sorry and apologize."
Any boards or advisors I ever knew were compliant ready.
"Kiss Hank's Ass"
http://www.geocities.com/church_of_hank/gospel.html
"With the world facing financial meltdown..divorce...gangs...wanton lawlessness: alcohol related diseases, drunkenness; teenage pregnancy and abortion...someone thinks it is productive and helpful to post slanderous allegations against Mr. Armstrong, about events that are over 40 years old. Wow!"
I can't decide if Tom is to be pitied or despised. Here, in true HWA style, he drags out the "horrors" of Current World Events to draw attention away from HWA's fell deeds.
The Apostate Paul
The NT model for a 'church' was that of local independence, with fraternal relations with other local assemblies and looking to Jesus as the 'hq'. The WCG model - like the Roman Church - requires burdensome bureaucracy
Thanks for finally posting Tom's new pic on the front page. Its about time!
Bill Lussenheide, Menifee CA USA
Just imagine what his hair must have looked like before he had his hair cut by his wife!!
Thomas Munson
"The NT model for a 'church' was that of local independence, with fraternal relations with other local assemblies and looking to Jesus as the 'hq'. The WCG model - like the Roman Church - requires burdensome bureaucracy"
Interestingly, the absolute ecclesiastical power of the Pastor General in terms of the WCG unincorporated church Association bylaws exceeds that of the pope in the Roman Church!
While he rules for a lifetime, the church Association bylaws give Tkach has the ultimate power to appoint anyone his successor Pastor General, including anyone in his own family - so long as they are "members in good standing" within the church.
Even the Pope himself cannot appoint a successor Pope prior to his own death!
Although they have not yet seen the light of day, we know the hidden church Association bylaws allow for this type of appointment by the Pastor General to appoint his own successor because that is how Tkach Jr. got the job - his own father Tkach Sr. appointed him, prior to his own death!
The WCG California corporation bylaws were first published by Ambassador Report. These leaked bylaws were confirmed as a verbatim copy with heavily annotated gloss in a subsequent edition of the Worldwide News.
It is that same set of written bylaws of the California based non-profit religious corporation which specifically mention the written bylaws of the affiliated parent church Association. The parent church Association is the uppermost organization at the top of the WCG hierarchical pyramid scheme with its lifetime pastor general and appointed Board of Elders. Those members on the Association Board of Elders who serve at the pleasure of the Pastor General are the only members given the power to vote in the church Association.
Stan
Tom,
You post, “How do we know that a vote was not taken in each local congregation, and the results were unanimous - as it was most likely to be?”
I don't think there is a remote possibility a 1968 vote was taken in each local congregation. That couldn't be done quietly. Besides, a total of 5,051 votes makes no sense in that USA local congregation scenario. As several previous posters testified, based on their personal knowledge and experience at the time in question, no such vote on Worldwide took place. Just think of the logistics. Another reason is the resolution Armstrong signed is worded exactly as follows:
RESOLVED: That ARTICLE I of the Articles of Incorporation of this corporation be amended to read as
follows :
"The name of this corporation shall be WORLDWIDE CHURCH OF GOD."
3. That at a meeting of the members of said corporation, duly held at 363 Grove Street, Pasadena, California, on January 5, 1968, a Resolution was adopted, which resolution is identical in form to the directors' resolution set forth in Paragraph 2 above.
4.That the number of members who voted affirmatively for the adoption of said resolution is 5,051*, and that the number of members constituting a quorum is 2,500.
Notice exactly what the document says that Armstrong himself certified and signed under penalty of perjury. The document gives the location of the meeting of the members – at Ambassador College, 363 Grove Street, Pasadena. It gives the date of the meeting – Friday, January 5, 1968. It states the member resolution was passed, because 5,051 members voted in the affirmative to adopt the resolution. It then gives a specific number of corporation members – 2,500 members – it states were needed for a minimum quorum of members for a legal vote to be taken according to the WCG corporation bylaws – such bylaws the corporation officers and directors have a duty of good faith and loyalty to follow. It then states a meeting of the Radio corporation board of directors was held the same Friday to accept the resolution.
Stan
"Vote or no vote..In my entire career as a pastor with WCG, NO ONE ever was credited with telling HWA or GTA they were mistaken, wrong or off base. They tried, made some progress and then watched as group efforts towards a balance based on practical considerations and common sense..."
Pastor Anonymous,
I unfortunately have to agree with your sentiment regarding how HWA and GTA governed the WCG, sometimes at odds with each other, but wielding enormous amounts of doctrinal, ecclesiastical, administrative, financially unaccountable power.
The corporation business bylaws together with the church Association ecclesiastical bylaws tend to exacerbate the problem of an unaccountable corporation president and pastor general of the church Association rolled into one.
The bylaws continue to be a reason why a tyrannical, unaccountable lifetime Pastor General is currently in place.
Stan
Anyone know what 363 Grove Street is? Does it have room enough for 5,000 cockroaches let alone 5,000 "members"?
KMS
If I'm not mistaken, it looks like there was another resolution passed at the same meeting, with exactly the same number of affirmative votes. At first I thought that was curious, but on reflection I guess it just shows that everybody was of one mind on these two different issues. But who were they all? And were they all there?
@ NO ONE ever was credited with telling HWA or GTA they were mistaken, wrong or off base. @
When the BW campus closure was being discussed I (in Memorial Hall) tried to ask HWA if there could possibly be an alternative to closure. I was told by Charles Hunting to desist.
Stan said...
Tom
>>You post, “How do we know that a vote was not taken in each local congregation, and the results were unanimous - as it was most likely to be?”<<
>>I don't think there is a remote possibility a 1968 vote was taken in each local congregation.<<
My query is in the form of a question. However, I replied to several comments in a previous post, and Gavin who has complained that HWA ran the church like a dictator is now behaving in the same way, under the guise of moderation.
Like all dictators, he has arrogated to himself the role of determining what is suitable to be published on the Blog, especially if it challenges his or the misconceived opinions of the people whose views he respects.
So as I believe in freedom of speech, within the bounds of decency, I will no longer be posting here if my comments are to be censored.
Fine Tom. Bye bye.
I guess this means moderation can be lifted a little sooner than expected.
It's been a pain, but the mean-spirited entries have subsided. Thanks to everyone for their forbearance, especially those whose entries appeared late because of human error on my part.
"Anyone know what 363 Grove Street is?"
I too would like to know what AC building was located there in January 1968 and what it looked like.
Perhaps someone could link a picture of it from an Envoy, or send it to me and I'll be pleased to put it up on the Ambassador Reports blog to help solve this mystery.
Tkach Jr. should remember where 363 Grove Street is located. He was a high school junior at Imperial in January 1968, starting his Ambassador in the fall semester of 1969.
If not, he can refresh his memory of 363 Grove St. with the real estate plats of the Pasadena campus located in his office.
Stan
I know -- let's ask Al Portune! His name is on one of the amendments, and he's been in a chatty mood lately...
Third Witness,
"But who were they all? And were they all there?"
You make a key observation in comparing these two amendments passed the very same day.
Whatever unseen WCG mechanism caused 5,051 votes to be cast for the change from Radio caused the precise same number of votes - 5,051 - to be cast for the dissolution distribution of assets amendment to the WCG Articles of Incorporation.
5,051 votes cast for both amendments to the articles does not appear to be a random number or an accident.
This boilerplate dissolution amendment passed that same day in 1968 was probably done as an update to be in full statutory compliance with then current non-profit religious corporation statutes in California.
It is noteworthy the very same WCG Article 8 which was amended by 5,051 votes cast in January, 1968 is the very same article which the Tkach board modified all by itself June 1, 1987 (trying to pass off their Amendment to WCG Article 8 as a lawfully permitted restatement, without a required member vote) so that first the Pastor General of the unincorporated Association would control all the assets in the event the Association dissolved the California corporation out of existence.
Article 8 is renumbered as the new Article 6 in the new "restated" Articles of Incorporation Tkach had passed June 1, 1987.
If a member vote was lawfully required under the bylaws and was not done, it invalidates the current "restated" articles of incorporation.
Legal opinions vary as to whether or not the Tkach board could get away with lawfully redefining the 1987 amendments as a mere restatement without a required vote of the corporation members. A member vote was most certainly required in 1968 to amend those same WCG articles.
Stan
"I know -- let's ask Al Portune! His name is on one of the amendments, and he's been in a chatty mood lately..."
I would like an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Portune. Does anyone know how to get in contact with him?
Email me at Ambassador.Reports @gmail.com
Stan
Post a Comment