Wednesday, 24 December 2014

Beyond The Good News?

Many have been those who have wryly noted that The Good News, published by the United Church of God, is anything but a conveyor of good news. The lads in Milford may have had that in mind when they decided on a re-branding exercise which takes effect in 2015. More likely though, they're unhappy about low circulation (currently claimed to be 201,000). So out with The Good News and in with Beyond Today magazine. Will it make any difference? Unlikely.

Meantime the January edition, which will be one of the last issues under the current name, is available to download. You might call it the Islamophobia issue, but in case that's not depressing enough there's a feature on Ebola as well! (Subhead: Increasing pandemics prophesied). I'm sure Scott Ashley will take exception if I'm wrong, but all this stuff is written by staff writers - dare one say hacks? - not anyone with real world knowledge of any of these subjects. This means the GN has an awful lot in common with The Watchtower.

Lads, here's a tip. Stop trying to mimic a badly written current affairs magazine with pretensions of "inside knowledge" based on a horribly uninformed understanding of "prophecy". Just sayin'.

But never let it be said that the GN (soon to be BT) doesn't tackle the really big questions. Randy Stiver, the Einstein (perhaps closer to one of the bagel brothers than Albert) of UCG has another piece entitled - wait for it - Who Is God? Whoa! He begins in a positive vein: "There are several ways you can start getting to really know God."

I stopped reading at that point and ran out of the room screaming.


  1. Beyond Today?

    No one could trust them to forecast local weather for a desert accurately. Or Antarctica.

    Anyway, we remember all the gloom and doom of The Good News, particularly the whole year about the Columbine Shootings. It's good that it will be gone. Perhaps people with mental disorders will stop reading it and get better. It does terrible things to depressives.

    The problem is that it is a branding. As such, they will lose 'good will' and become just another in a group of worthless flagship publications in the Cult of Herbert Armstrong Mafia. It also signals a major change in the direction of the group: Well, direction may be too strong a term for their meandering aimlessly, but be certain it will change in the general direction of increased confusion and chaos. It's called entropy.

    We'll come back January 1, 2015, Lord willing and the creeks don't rise, with what's ahead for 2015 (at the Painful Truth).

    And you can be sure that for the Armstrongists, it will not be Good News.

  2. It is not possible to repair and revitalize an effort that failed in 1975, a movement that is based on a ridiculous theory which has long since been obliterated by more detailed, and more accurate research. These folks are the moral equivalent of "flat earthers". Short of a new Dark Ages, I can't imagine any changes in branding or marketing having even minimal effect. It is like trying to rename or brand excrement, as if somehow rebranding would render it desirable.