Loading...

Sunday, 26 January 2014

Another misleading post by the Plymouth brethren Christian church high demand cult

I can assure readers that members of the PBCC are or certainly were being prevented from viewing the full document despite the allegations on the PBCC website;


This press release is a fabrication of the truth as reported by several current members. Nevertheless, it might point a few more disaffected members to this blog.

For those of you who've not seen it yet here's the link to the full Charity Commission document with the new 'Faith in practice' revisions, click here for link;

If you can't access this document a hard copy can be posted to you or it can be viewed at any UK public library.

23 comments:

  1. It is of course possible, even likely, that the members of the PDT have seen the full document. I don't have evidence to the contrary. However, I have had reports that brethren from other congregations have either not been able to see the CC document or if they have they have been told it is lies and not to ask questions. So when asked by the journalist for my opinion, I gave it based on what I have been told. Just as the PBCC can publish personal comments about me, so I am entitled to make personal opinions about them as an organisation. Unlike them I do not make personal comments about one member.
    I am delighted that the PBCC (aka Exclusive Brethren) are saying that the procedure that was adopted with the PD congregation will be carried out in all other congregations. That means they will all know what the conditions that are stated in the trust document are. That a statutory body states that a so-called christian group have caused detriment and harm is unprecedented. That christians would admit to harm must be rare. That they have agreed to change is wonderful news - a really good outcome for former members. I hope that the PBCC will also, as they promised, make amends for what they call past mistakes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No evidence? How good of you to admit it.
      So wouldn't you say it's well past the time for granny to hang-up her overused broomstick and get back to knitting?.

      Delete
    2. I have been told by some that they have access to the documents but because Bruce Hales is a 'pure man' [what does that have to do with anything?] and they trust him 100% they don't need to read the stuff.

      Delete
  2. I thought 12 was the age of responsibility? Has that been changed now? It wouldn't do to be telling PBCC children of a school age that they can leave and go to Uni, would it? More weasel words from the limited company 'church'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Can we assume that PBCC congregations in Scotland can continue to be mean and vindictive to ex-members as they are not under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission? How convenient. Maybe they'll all move up there now? Many evidently have already. Not noticed any RRT activity in that neck of the woods either, if there had been I'm sure they would have blogged about it in graphic detail. Like one fireman ate 3 and a half sausages, but left part of his second cheese and ham toastie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although Scotland has a separate Charity regulator who can grant charitable status, this does not automatically give the right to tax concessions. If a charity in Scotland wants the tax concessions it needs to comply with UK Charity Law and needs the Charity Commission to confirm its compliance.

      Possibly for that reason, or possibly out of the goodness of their hearts and pure selfless altruism, the Scottish HEB formed an RRT after the dispute began in 2012 and they have been seen in action doing charitable work.

      Delete
  4. Two weeks ago I sent paper copies of the full 55 page Charity Commission decision document to three PBCC 'brothers', one 'sister' and one married couple in the fellowship.

    I received immediate replies from two 'brothers'. They thanked me for sending the full text and commented that up to then (acknowledgements dated 14th and 15th January) they had only seen "the summary". On January 22nd I received a letter from the husband of the married couple I'd contacted. He thanked me for the trouble I had taken in copying the Charity Commission's document and said that he had already seen it on the Charity Commission's web site.

    I was encouraged to receive three out of five replies to my postings. (It gives me heart always when members of the PBCC treat me courteously.)

    I may yet hear from the 'sister' and remaining 'brother' to whom I wrote.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It is interesting that the PBCC have placed this letter on their own website where no-one can comment whilst they feel free to make comments elsewhere.
    I find it difficult to believe that a 55 page document was read out in full to people but of course I cannot possible know.

    ReplyDelete
  6. How many is a congregation??

    #notapublicbenefit

    ReplyDelete
  7. The PBCC will need to be constantly reminded what they’ve signed up to as regards the content of the CC document, so far (27th Jan 2014) there have been no practical changes in line with the CC’s terms !

    So, rather than publishing hollow attempts at self justification, the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren's time (and that of Garth Woodcock / Peter Trevvett) would be better spent actually enacting and carrying out the requirements signed up to in the CC Report

    But while the PBCC/ Exclusive Brethren, Garth Woodcock / Peter Trevvett waste time, families are still physically separated !. Parents, children, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents etc still have no contact. There has been no public apology, or attempts to make amends, for damage, detriment and harm caused by the PBCC in the past and this damage still continues today.

    In the past two weeks those close to me have been writing letters and including the full 55 page CC report highlighting particular areas of note such as the “Faith in Practice” document, to relatives and contacts within the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren and I have been doing the same. These are painful letters to write as some cases cover over 30 years of physical separation.

    Sending relatives and contacts physical copies of the 55 page report is one way to be satisfied that had least some members will have had sight of it. Whether they are allowed to act upon its requirements, whether they actually read it, whether the leaders in each UK PBCC locality will allow them to keep the report and send it internally to other Brethren members, remains to be seen.

    The history of the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren regards openness, transparency and clarity towards its own members is questionable to say the least. A few examples might be –

    - The banning of the 1972 book “Goodbye Beloved Brethren”

    - Suppression of facts regarding the Aberdeen 1970 James Taylor Junior matter, with thousands of Brethren unable to find out facts (transcripts, letters, recordings, etc) until years after and still more thousands fed a fictional cover up story, to stop them from leaving, a situation which continues to this day

    - Suppression of facts regards James Taylor Juniors alcoholism 1959 to 1970 and his attendance at a drying out clinic in 1964/5, a situation which continues to this day

    The letter to Third Sector contains the following –

    “The procedure adopted by the Preston Down Trust and Congregation is expected to be adopted by each and every other trust and congregation in England and Wales”

    PBCC/Exclusive Brethren,
    Now you have been committed to that expectation by the publication of this letter on your own headed paper, we wait to see it happen and the content of the CC agreement acted upon, so far it has NOT happened.

    As ever with PBCC/Exclusive Brethren, what you commit to on paper, what you say in public, compared with what happens in every day reality, have always been in contradiction and poles apart.

    Will this change going forward ?

    ReplyDelete
  8. If the EB aka PBCC wish to be seen as operating in an entirely transparent manner they can simply post the link to the full 55 page Charity Commission decision document on their website.
    Why is it that the leadership of the EB seem reluctant to "come clean" with their own members?
    Do they not trust them?
    Are they now concerned that they will be seen to have been disclosing only half -truths to the membership?
    Are they concerned that the more thinking membership will now realise that implementing the CC agreement will in effect set aside over 50 years of their harsh physical separation ministry?
    Sorry EB hierarchy the time for keeping people in the dark has passed. "God is light and in Him there is no darkness at all." 1 John 1 v 5 - 7.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Must have come as a welcome relief to Laurie Moffitt that his comments were not responded to in the normal PBCC way, by way of threatening legal letters from Gallant Maxwell, Farrers or other lawyers. The PBCC appear to have a problem differentiating between hearing truths about themselves and defamation. The sad thing is that many truths about the PBCC are at the very least disturbing and in the worst cases, illegal.

    I reiterate the suggestion above. If the PBCC have no qualms about their members reading the whole truth about the Preston Down Charity Commission decision, together with it's stipulations, simply post a link to the document on the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church website. Simples.

    ReplyDelete
  10. the 1972 book “Goodbye Beloved Brethren”

    remains available in certain public libraries. It is from this book I learned the truth about the Big Jim Taylor Aberdeen 1970 incident a whole 14 years after leaving the PBCC aka Exclusive Brethren. I understand that the Brethren bought all the copies of this book they could find and burnt them. Their treatment of the late Aberdeen journalist and author, Norman Adams was despicable. That's what you get for telling the truth about the Exclusive Brethren and it's happening right now, again.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The entire book is available on a PDF file on Wikipeebia. Those who are printing the 55 page document to send to Peebs can include a copy!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just a further observation,

    The letter published by PBCC/Exclusive Brethren and sent to the editor of Third Sector states the following -

    “We are writing as responsible members of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church to point out errors of fact in the article by Sam Burne James..”

    The “we” is the corporate PBCC as its on PBCC branded paper and must also include the co signatories, Garth Woodcock and Peter Trevvett. A reader might think that “responsible members” of a church such as those mentioned, should be trusted to put facts & truth into public domain, but it’s a little muddier than that ! . Some digging uncovers the following -

    The last public PBCC headed statement I saw that was co signed by Peter Trevvett is viewable here –

    http://wikipeebia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Reply-to-Mail-Article.pdf.

    In that document is this - “We have seen the statement from the Wilton Park Trustees ‘COMMENTS ON ARTICLE IN THE MAIL ON SUNDAY 20TH JANUARY 2013’ and as informed of the witnessed facts we unequivocally support everything contained therein”

    The article that receives Peter Trevvett’s “unequivocal support” is viewable here -

    http://wikipeebia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/WILTON-PARK-SCHOOL-22-01-13-V2.pdf.

    An extract from this Jan 22 2013 press statement which receives Peter Trevvett’s “unequivocal support” is as follows -

    Quote
    “Christian sect school” The Plymouth Brethren Christian Church is a mainstream Christian Church holding substantially the same doctrines as the Church of England. The PBCC is not a sect but is structured and operates on common Christian ground as taught by Holy Scripture which is available for all Christians”
    End Quote

    Just using facts and truth already in the public domain to compare to the above quoted statement shows it contains many “errors of fact”

    - The PBCC is not a “Mainstream Christian Church” as it separates from all other Christian Churches & Christians who are not part of the PBCC !. Members can’t worship, fellowship, or have communion with any other Christian in any other church, those caught doing so risk being “Withdrawn From” (cut out of the group & losing family contact). Members of the PBCC who want to go to a real mainstream church will be “Withdrawn From” as being iniquitous !

    - The PBCC does not hold the same doctrines as the C of E. The C of E wouldn’t align itself with sordid unchristian details of Detriment & Harm published in the Jan 2014 CC Report. Nor would it align with separating from the rest of the Body of Christ (all other Christian Churches), nor would it agree with giving communion elements to babes in arms without requiring a confession of faith, nor would it agree with calling the alcoholic womaniser James Taylor Junior “our beloved”, nor would it agree with Bruce Hales saying “if you leave the PBCC you cant be a Christian”, nor would it agree with dividing families if a person leaves, etc. The claim is ever more ridiculous & preposterous when considering JN Darby (the founder of Exclusive Brethrenism) separated from the established church and rejected it, including rejection of clergy, saying they were a “sin against the holy spirit” !

    - The PBCC is not “on common Christian ground as taught by Holy Scripture”, the Word of God doesn’t teach division of families if a member leaves to go to another Christian Church, it doesn’t teach separation from all other Christians and Christian Churches, it doesn’t teach babes in arms to take communion elements, it doesn’t teach the sordid aspects of Detriment & Harm as explained in the Jan 2014 CC Report

    Just looking at this example, it would seem the PBCC/Exclusive Brethren and Peter Trevvett don’t have a credible track record of putting truth & fact into the public domain, this might cast a shadow over the claims made to the editor of Third Sector

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brother Rev and Co - Gracefully conceding defeat is your only option chum.
      It's very easy to spot your posts are founded on a distortion of the facts, an over active imagination, wild speculation and really dumb assumptions.
      There can be no doubt in the minds of the cc / general public as a whole, that the PBCC have gone way beyond what was required to prove they are a genuine Christian church and and thus to rightly retain charity status.
      I believe all the facts have been made know to their congregations and members. They won their case fairly and nothing you can do or say will change this fact. Waffle on for the next 100 years if you like.

      Rev - Just get used to the idea they aren't going out like a fag end.
      The light that shines forth from the faces of the brethren, is a witness to the rightness and happiness of the position being held to. It's a place free of the world's ways and where the holy spirit can be free.
      Your opinions are flawed, obnoxious and worthless in the sight of God and are of no consequence to his holy will.
      Jesus will come again soon my friend and so where will you be?
      Grace does not run out, but time does.
      Worth considering?

      Notapeebatall

      Delete
    2. I'm from the general public. Not a peeb, never was a peeb, but interested in this story. I have met many peebs. I can't say I spotted any radiant light, nor any special virtues. I did spot an 'awesome' love of money, but I don't think that counts.
      I find your theology puzzling. You use the right sort of words, but support a harmful and non-biblical cult. I can't work that one out. Most of the bible isn't hard to understand, yet it seems the HEB have managed to mangle even the easy bits into a confusion. I don't see any freedom in the Holy Spirit, I just see random laws, random directives and making money. I'm puzzled why you support the HEB. What are you looking to gain by doing it? Could you explain some more please?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 17.19.. the contribution from Notapeebatall (ahem!) is a common factor of these blogs; apparently, there is small army out there (in reality, one or two - John Handel and a couple of others) who announce they are ex members, or not members, but endorse "the position" of this cult. It really begs the question why they don't join, or, at least tell us something about their particular denominations (unless they are isolated, without affiliation). I hardly think the HEB (PBCC) is a place free of the world's ways since they are largely consumed by avarice and business ("handel" is "business" in the Nordic languages!) Certainly, there is a freedom of spirit - sadly, a lot of it out of a bottle; this might account for the shining faces, of course.

      Notapublicbenefit

      Delete
  13. What did Garth Woodcock and Peter Trevvett mean by "... were supplied and read out to the members of the Congregation ..."?

    Has each individual member who is at least 17 years old actually read the full document?

    Who read it out to them? And how much of the document did they read aloud?

    Did anyone ask any questions? If so, what were the answers?

    Was either Garth Woodcock or Peter Trevvett present on this occasion or is their report just hearsay?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. . . . and how many members need to be present before you call it a congregation?

      Delete
    2. Dumb1 / 16:50 Ask yourself the question? How many members need to be present before you call it a congregation? Look it up on Google / dictionary. Get back to us if the definition specifies a number.
      Consider to congregate / gather together etc might give your brain cells a rub.

      Ivor Handelonit

      Delete
    3. No, I am not interested in what Google thinks a congregation is. I am more interested in what the Brethren think it is. The Brethren have somehow finished up with a whopping great loophole that could be used to prevent any low-ranking members from learning the details of the agreement. I refer Mr Ivor Handelonit to paragraph 14.1 the new Preston Down Trust Deed.

      14.7 A quorum for a Meeting of the Congregation shall be two Members of the Congregation.

      So accepting the agreement unanimously could all be done quietly in a corner, and the plebs can be told with a fanfare of triumphalism that Mr Bruce has been completely victorious over the enemy. “The horse and his rider has he thrown into the sea!”

      Thank you for suggesting a pseudonym for me. I'll adopt that from now on.

      Dumb1

      Delete
  14. Quite correct, not so Dumb 1...I asked a similar rhetorical question on another page of this blog, knowing that only two members were required (i.e local enforcer plus two acolytes). Looks like Ivor H. grabbed hold of the wrong handle on this occasion.

    Ivor Angleonit (aka #notapublicbenefit)

    ReplyDelete