Introduction

Here is a excerpt from Stephen Flurry's book Raising the Ruins, in the section Credentials (Part 4), under the subheading, Herbert Armstrong and J.H. Allen. We obtained this excerpt from the Philadelphia Church of God web site on Jan 24, 2010. The excerpt is presented in its entirety, with our comments inserted.

Flurry: In Transformed by Truth, Mr. Tkach Jr. wrote, "In fact, it is no secret that Herbert Armstrong's The United States and the British Commonwealth in Prophecy was copied from a book titled Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright by J.H. Allen." He offers no support for this plagiarism charge. It's just true because he says so—it's "no secret"—everyone knows Mr. Armstrong "copied" it. But if you actually take the time to examine the two books, you will find that they are entirely different. Yes, entirely.

Comment: Having examined both books we do not agree that the two books are entirely different. We agree that there are significant differences, but there are also many similarities. We don't see how anyone can say they are entirely different.

Also, Flurry seems to interpret "copied" in a very narrow sense, as in copying the entire book nearly word-for-word, or some such thing. The definition of plagiarism states that copying ideas is also plagiarism, if no credit is given to the source of those ideas. It is irrelevant whether the entire book was copied or whether it was all copied word-for-word or nearly so. To our knowledge, nobody has ever said that Armstrong copied the entire book from cover to cover, or even that he copied everything he got from Allen word-for-word.

Flurry: Just because both books discuss the modern identity of the lost 10 tribes of ancient Israel does not mean Mr. Armstrong "copied" Allen. If William Manchester and Martin Gilbert both write biographies about Winston Churchill, does that mean one plagiarized the other?

Comment: As we show on the main page on this site, there are many more similarities than just the fact that both books dealt with the lost ten tribes.

Flurry: And it's not like Mr. Armstrong tried to conceal the fact that he read Allen's book when studying the subject of ancient Israel's migration into Europe. He said, "It's true that I had read one or two other writings and that book of J.H. Allen on the truth about the lost 10 tribes." But it would be a "bald-faced lie" for anyone to say it was copied, Mr. Armstrong said.

Comment: Nowhere in the book did Armstrong mention J.H. Allen, so most of Armstrong's readers would not have known about Allen. Only a small percentage of Armstrong's readership would be privy to Armstrong's admission that he read Allen's book. If Armstrong really said he read Allen's book before writing his own book, then, because he never gave proper credit to Allen by naming him in the book itself, it amounts to an admission that he plagiarized all those points on which he agreed with Allen.

See our main page for evidence that Armstrong apparently did try to conceal, from the readers of his book, what Flurry calls "the fact" that he read Allen's book. Did Armstrong completely "come clean" or did he make this admission to a limited audience only after he was forced to talk about the issue, perhaps after some in his church noticed the similarities between the books and raised the question within the church?

As we understand it, Armstrong's admission, even if there was one, reached only a limited audience consisting of loyal WCG [Worldwide Church of God] members. Regardless of what he might have told some church members about where he got the theory, Armstrong told his millions of readers outside the church that prophecy was sealed until "the latter half of the twentieth century" (1980 version, p. 8) which is long after Allen wrote (1902) and even after he died (1930). This is equivalent to saying he did not get it from Allen or any earlier Anglo-Israelism writers. If he told WCG members otherwise, he contradicted himself. Which statement was the truth?

Flurry: "I examined this so-called Anglo-Israel theory," he continued. "But I checked it very carefully with the Bible, and I only believed what I saw in the Bible. I didn't believe and I threw out a lot of what they had."

Comment: Throwing out some of Allen's material does not negate the charge of plagiarism. If someone breaks into a house and takes only half the goods, leaving the rest, a crime still took place. So too with literary theft (plagiarism). Taking just some ideas without giving proper credit is still plagiarism.

The entire charge of plagiarism could have been easily avoided in the first place simply by citing his sources. So, if Armstrong did get some material from Allen, why didn't he just say that in his book?

Flurry: Isn't that the way any honest theologian would study a biblical commentary or history? If it squares with the truth of the Bible, then Mr. Armstrong was entitled to expound upon it just as much as any other theologian.

Comment: Anyone is entitled to expound on the theory or any other doctrine, but nobody is entitled to hide their sources when doing so. This is especially true if they tell their readers they got it by revelation from God. Hiding sources is against the law, and, if he got it from men, passing it off as revelation from God is not being an honest theologian.

Does Stephen Flurry claim he got Anglo-Israelism by revelation from God, or does he say he got it from Herbert Armstrong? How then could Armstrong read a book by Allen and claim he got it by revelation from God?

Flurry: J.H. Allen introduced his book by writing, "Although it is not generally known, it is nevertheless true that God made two covenants with Abraham ... ." Compare that to the introductory statement in The United States and Britain in Prophecy: "A staggering turn in world events is due to erupt in the next few years. It will involve violently the United States, Britain, Western Europe, the Middle East." These opening remarks, like the titles for both books, highlight the vast difference between the two.

Comment: Flurry attempts to disprove the charge of plagiarism by noting some differences in the books. This is entirely beside the point. The point is whether Armstrong used some of Allen's ideas or words without giving proper credit, not whether the two books are identical in all respects.

Stephen Flurry is the president of Herbert W. Armstrong College. If one of his students plagiarized part of an essay from another student, would Flurry excuse that academic dishonesty on the grounds that there were still some differences between the two works? What if a student copied (and rewrote in his own words) only two thirds (for example) of the answers on a test or assignment? Would that be allowed at Flurry's college? How much copying does Flurry allow at his college? 75%? 50%? 25%? Or 0%?

Flurry: J.H. Allen organized his work into these three sections: 1) the birthright promise; 2) the scepter promise; and 3) the veil being lifted from the Abrahamic nations. The first two sections revolve around the promises God made to Abraham in Genesis 12 and how they played out in history. And to Allen's credit, he tried to be honest with the Bible as compared with secular history.

Comment: If charges of plagiarism could be refuted just by the existence of some differences in two works, a person could take numerous ideas from another writer, reorganize it or add in some other material, and get away with it every time.

Also, it is debatable whether Allen was honest with the bible, since some of his interpretations of scripture seem to be without any foundation, and seem to be used only because they support Anglo-Israelism. (Some of these errors were repeated by Armstrong).

Flurry: The third section is also mostly historical and secular. And when Allen does venture into explaining the prophetic significance, he veers way off course.

Mr. Armstrong's book, on the other hand, is about a prophesied captivity to come upon our peoples unless we repent of our sins. That is the book's central focus from beginning to end.

Comment: In our view, the central focus of Armstrong's book is Anglo-Israelism, and how only Armstrong's church had this "lost key".

For example, the book title is The United States and Britain in Prophecy not The United States and Britain in Captivity.

Armstrong devotes considerable space to discussing why those outside his church supposedly cannot understand these prophecies. The first two chapters are called The Lost Master Key Has Been Found and Prophecies Closed Until Now!

But the central focus is a moot point since plagiarism is about copying any words or ideas, not just the central focus. A writer can't copy ideas from another, change the focus, and claim he did not plagiarize anything.

Flurry: In expounding on these end-time prophecies, Mr. Armstrong devoted some space in the book, between chapters 3 and 8, to establish Israel's present-day identity based upon Bible and secular history. These are crucial historical facts that must be explained for readers to understand the truth about end-time prophecy. J.H. Allen is to be credited for teaching the truth about some of these historical facts. But he certainly did not grasp the tremendous significance of this history as it relates to Bible prophecy.

Comment: This has nothing to do with where Armstrong got the Anglo-Israelism theory, along with many supporting details, and why he did not give credit in his book to his sources.

By saying Allen did not grasp the significance of history as it relates to prophecy, is Flurry trying to suggest that Allen's contribution was mostly just secular history and that Armstrong had to come along and tie it in with the bible? If so, this is simply not true. A great many of the scriptural details Armstrong used were already known to Allen.

Flurry: And yet, that's what the last six chapters of Mr. Armstrong's book are devoted to—expounding upon the real significance of this history as it relates to end-time prophecy. In chapter 10, for instance, Mr. Armstrong wrote about how the birthright promises were withheld for 2,520 years. There is nothing like this in Allen's book. Another chapter asks the question, "Why did Israel lose its identity?" J.H. Allen not only failed to answer that question, he never asked it. Then Mr. Armstrong concluded his book by discussing what is prophesied to happen to the American and British peoples in the very near future—a conclusion that is not only different, but at complete odds with J.H. Allen's conclusions.

Comment: This has nothing to do with where Armstrong got the basic Anglo-Israelism theory along with many related details, and why he did not give credit in his book to his sources.

Flurry: While it is true that Mr. Armstrong read Judah's Scepter and Joseph's Birthright, along with other books about the "Anglo-Israel" theory, he did not copy those works. Joe Jr. made that dishonest claim without any supportive evidence whatsoever, simply because he dislikes Mr. Armstrong and doesn't agree with the book that more than 6 million people requested.

Comment: Once again Flurry interprets copying in a very narrow sense. But by stating that Armstrong read Allen's book he implies that Armstrong did in fact obtain from Allen all those points on which the two authors agree. If Armstrong read Allen's book before he wrote his own, then Armstrong can take no credit for any of the many points on which the two authors agree. Flurry doesn't call it plagiarism, but his statement amounts to an accusation (or admission) of plagiarism to anyone who understands what plagiarism really is -- copying words or ideas without giving proper credit.

Whether or not there is any supportive evidence, readers can judge for themselves after reading this site.

Conclusion: Stephen Flurry attempts to defend Armstrong from charges of plagiarism by using an incorrect portrayal of what constitutes plagiarism. Since Flurry is both an author and a college president, we think he should know what plagiarism really is, and probably does.

Flurry downplays and omits many similarities between the books and plays up the differences. He seems to minimize Allen's contribution while overstating Armstrong's contribution. None of this refutes the charge of plagiarism.

We think this excerpt from Stephen Flurry's book does more to implicate Armstrong than to exonerate him, but only provided that one knows what plagiarism is.

Armstrong supporters could have hoped Flurry would have done a better job of defending Armstrong, given that Flurry's church portrays itself as the one work truly carrying on Armstrong's legacy. We invite other churches or individuals to submit to us their rebuttals to the allegations of plagiarism. We will not rehash the same arguments over and over, but we invite any new arguments.

Note 1: Flurry's church continues to publish Armstrong's book. A number of other WCG offshoots have their own versions. How many of these churches give proper (or any) credit to Allen in their books? Even if Armstrong didn't actually read Allen's book, shouldn't they at least acknowledge that Allen (and others) knew these things before they were "revealed" (?) to Armstrong?

Note 2: In Oct 2010 we noticed that the Philadelphia Church of God's Imperial Academy (run by PCG minister Wayne Turgeon) listed on its web site (here) "cheating or plagiarism—or any form of student dishonesty" as grounds for expulsion. How can they expel students for plagiarism if they don't know what plagiarism is? Other grounds for explusion include "cheating or lying." We recommend that Stephen Flurry keep this in mind when he discusses the two books by Armstrong and Allen, lest his students decide that he is guilty of lying himself.

Note 3: If six million people requested Armstrong's book, and, as I recall, only five million requested it from the WCG, the PCG seems to be saying that they have distributed a million copies of the book. If so, why has their little church gotten smaller rather than grown much larger? This book probably did more to build the old WCG than any other literature, so why isn't it building the PCG? In any case, discussing the book's (claimed) distribution is just another distraction that Flurry throws in to promote Armstrong's book and draw the reader's attention away from the central issue of plagiarism. Furthermore, the more people the PCG distributes it to without adding in proper citations to Allen, the more guilty they are of promulgating the false statements in the book which claim the material was not understood until long after Allen.

Note 4:

Some readers will be interested to know that the belief Flurry refers to when he says the "birthright promises were withheld for 2,520 years" might not have originated with Armstrong. If not, it raises the possibility Armstrong plagiarized from additional sources. According to Ralph Orr, the idea goes back to an earlier time. In his paper, "How Anglo-Israelism Entered Seventh-day Churches of God" in a section called "The Seven-Times Theory" Orr states:

World War I began the year A.N. Dugger [of the Church of God Seventh Day] became editor of The Bible Advocate. Years before, Dugger's father had believed that a great war would break out sometime between 1912 and 1914. Dugger later explained that his father's belief sprung from his interpretation of Leviticus 26:27-8. In the King James Version that prophecy reads "And if ye will...walk contrary unto me [the Lord]; Then I will walk contrary unto you also in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins" (Leviticus 26:27-28). [Orr, pp. 13-14 in .doc file].

As modern translations make clear, the words seven times mean sevenfold. In other words, the prophesied curses on ancient Israel would be in intensity seven times more than their sins. A.F. Dugger misunderstood seven times as seven periods of time. [Orr, p. 14 in .doc file].

How did the older Dugger apply this misunderstanding about "times" to arrive at the remarkably accurate conclusion that a great war would break out between 1912 and 1914? The process he followed is complicated. First, he followed a common Adventist assumption that one prophetic "time" equals one year. Thus seven "times" are said to equal seven years. Making another assumption that a prophetic year has 360 days, A.F. Dugger then multiplied seven years by 360. The result was 2,520 days. He then applied the assumption that each day represented one year. In effect, he had turned the years into days, then back into years again. The seven times became seven years, then 2,520 days, then 2,520 years. After all this math, the older Dugger concluded he had discovered how long God was cursing the Jews. [Orr, p. 14 in .doc file].

A few pargraphs later Orr adds that,

A.F. Dugger did not originate the seven-times theory. The now forgotten but once popular British evangelical H. Grattan Guinness may have been the first to propose it. Guinness' first book, The Approaching End of the Age, was originally published in 1878. Extremely popular, it went through 13 editions between 1878 and 1897. After his death, E.H. Horne produced in 1918 a revised and abridged edition of this most popular of Guinness' books. People were still buying his books into the 1930s. ... In his second book, Light for the Last Days, Guinness elaborated. He dedicated four chapters to the seven "times" idea. [Orr, p. 15 in .doc file].

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

Note 5: We deplore the way the WCG was torn apart after Armstrong's death by leaders who promulgated bad doctrines with bad arguments and probably had a hidden agenda. Nevertheless, we do not let that crime bias us against the possibility that the history in Orr's paper could well be accurate.

Acknowledgment: We are indebted to a blogger going by the name of Red Fox for some of the ideas on this page. Red Fox's complete article is posted on this site.