This is a letter I wrote to the Society after someone asked me out in service about Herbert W. Armstrong and his teachings. That was the excuse, anyway. In fact, I had been reading some of Armstrong's literature, too, and was curious what the WTS would have to say about him. I don't have a copy of the actual letter I wrote, only the Society's response. But the essence of the letter was just that I asked for any comments they might have on HWA and his teachings.
Points of interest:
I find it interesting that they never actually mention Armstrong's name in the letter, although I certainly had mentioned it in my inquiry. Apparently the legal department had started flexing its muscles even as far back as 1969.
Their interpretive spin on Acts 20:20 is, of course, completely bogus. According to the context, Paul was speaking to church elders. It was them, fellow Christians, that Paul had taught "publicly and from house to house." Other translations use expressions such as "in every house" and "in private homes." This text gives no support for any campaign of public proselytizing of non-believers. Ray Franz picked this one apart very nicely in one of his books.
Also, contrary to what the letter asserts, Armstrong had established the Worldwide Church of God, which did have individual congregations, like pretty much any other church. There was a difference, though: like in the JW's, but unlike in normal churches, the congregations were centrally controlled by headquarters, and had no autonomy in their own affairs.
I suppose the WTS would also assert that congregations not under their control could not be "congregations of true worshipers." In fact, they did so assert in the second to last paragraph. The killer blow for Armstrong: he was not in line with the "instrument God is using in these last days...his 'faithful and discreet slave class.'" Some things never change, I guess.
In looking at this after so many years, it amazes me that I accepted so much of what they said strictly on the basis of their assertion. The scriptures they cite do not prove what they are trying to prove. But I accepted it because they said so. I'm reminded of David Reed's statement that every morning he gets up and looks in the mirror trying to find the hole in his head where his brains fell out. I know exactly how he feels.