Loading...

Saturday, 15 March 2014

The Hales exclusive brethren's typically pious, arrogant and assumptive stance

Peter Trevvett (nominated spokesperson) strikes yet again for the PBCC.
Further information about this chap who is incidentally author of various PBCC sanctioned publications would be most welcome- click here for the weblink;http://www.osce.org/odihr/105963






47 comments:

  1. Freedom of religion has always remained under threat.In England and America and elsewhere as well. If human right to have freedom of religion had been upheld. Then how would Exclusive Brethren been able? to divide families up over faith beliefs, in the manner they have.

    Peter Trevvett misses the point. That the British government is committed to diversity and to accommodate all these different faiths, or no faith.Then this is indeed about applying freedom of religion.

    Brethren will still retain a right to believe what they wish. Except they wont retain a right to continue to punish any others for not maintaining the same beliefs. For to allow that would be to deny the right of someone else,in regards to their religious freedom.

    In America, the first nation people's right to retain their freedom of religion, in many cases was not upheld.

    Peter Trevvett wants to maintain these freedoms for himself, but he wishes to refuse it of others.And he still wishes to be issued with charity status in doing so

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is a huge subject, and an important one. Over the scale of many centuries religious freedoms, along with many other freedoms, have greatly gained ground and enjoyed the protection of law in most of the developed countries. However, in recent years some religious freedoms have been restricted, and there are now moves afoot to restrict them further. I can think right now of about 15 examples, too many to describe before I fall asleep, but maybe tomorrow I will describe some of the recent and current legislative moves that have restricted and will continue to restrict religious freedoms in several countries. Whether these moves are good or bad is certainly worth debating.

    There have always been limits to religious freedom, and there always will be. Some of them are obviously necessary. In the UK, for instance, you are not allowed to kill people for working on the Sabbath or dash Babylonian babies against the rocks, even if your religion tells you to.

    The law obviously needs to strike a balance between freedom to practice religion and freedom from the harmful effects of some religious practices.

    I thought Peter Trevvett’s article was useful as an indication of how the Hales Brethren saw the problem in September 2013, although some of the statements in it would be accepted by very few informed observers. For example, “. . . the Brethren have been charitable for more than one hundred years.”

    Peter asks whether freedom of worship is still established without question in the UK. The answer is yes. His last paragraph implies the opposite, but the Brethren’s freedom of worship has never been threatened, not by the 2006 Charities Act or any other act.

    Peter writes. “We do not know why the Charity Commission has acted against us.” Well, that was in September 2013. I am sure everyone knows by now. The Charity Commission spelled it out in great detail in their report of 3 January 2014.

    One of Peter Trevvett’s statements that sounds fairly convincing is that loss of charitable status would threaten the survival of the Hales Brethren. I could believe that. Without the tax breaks, HEBism would lose a good reason for existing, some would say its main reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Freedom the of human right to live in a manner of relative health and happiness. Has always also involved the need to define and enforce a certain number of rules and regulations.

      Freedom isn't only just about allowing each person the right to choose to do what ever they wish. Because some personal choices that some people made,could also cause others to need to experience very much harm.

      So human freedom is often also about striking a balance. Setting up some better guidelines.

      And throughout history.Guidelines have continually evolved

      Religion is no different.Religion should also be expected to have need to evolve too. If this were not correct , then us human's might still agree to burn witches.Our disobedient children might still need to be stoned to death . Human blood sacrifice might be a religious ritual, that still would continue today.

      The people like Peter Trevvett , are the scaremongers of society . And back in times when people were being burned at the stake, these scaremonger would have been there as well too,sounding off all their warnings , of what might become of us all next , if we ever dared agree to allow change.

      Things have changed . Society has evolved . And in most ways ,it's also changed for the best.

      Human right to freedom, must also need to include forms of regulation

      Peter Trevvett is willfully misleading people. For there is no threat to religious freedom. Quite the opposite in fact

      For it is religious tyranny that is currently coming under threat

      Delete
  3. Who is Peter Trevvett?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Minister for misinformation and principal spin conductor with the PBCC (2012) Ltd. Formerly, the Hales division of the Exclusive Brethren

      Clearly, if the PBCC (2012) Ltd lost charitable status, they would have to tighten their belts, a little (difficult for some, I know) and live like other minority sects.

      Repair roofs, rather than build more air conditioned blots on the landscape, less funding for detached houses in leafy suburbs and new people carriers, fewer bottles in the supermarket trolley. In fact, live like normal folk.

      No doubt, PBCC Ltd Holding Company businesses would still be able to find plenty of tax breaks to "tithe" the coffers.

      #notapublicbenefit

      Delete
    2. 09:46 - What evidence of the above do you have #notapublicbenefit?

      Para 1: Never mind about "Spin" It's your mind that is wandering around in circles.

      Para 2: There is no "If" about the PBCC. They have charitable status.

      Para 3: The PBCC live like normal folk.

      Para 5: If anything the PBCC pay more tax than they need to.

      Do the PBCC question how you live your life, how much tax you pay or run your own affairs? Nope.
      Are you happy with your lot? If not, please don't blame anyone else, but rather make some changes to it. I think you know what to do.

      Frank Lee

      Delete
    3. Dear Mr Frank/Lee/Bored/Carson

      I did not say the PBCC do not have charitable status; however, they could lose it unless they offer evidence of considerable change (not helped by some of the mindless comments, and abuse of Christians, and others, on this site, by some of your associates).

      I did not say the PBCC do not pay tax, I merely implied that businesses can finds ways to avoid tax; these are beyond the scope of regular PAYE payers.

      As an individual, I am not subject to scrutiny regarding my life, or my tax affairs, since I am not an organisation expecting public financial assistance, on somewhat dubious grounds. Furthermore, I do not think I have harmed, or caused distress, to thousands of others.

      Let me assure you, that habitation of a detached house, as the very minimum requirement, plus people carriers, plus income to spend on luxuries every week, such as expensive alcoholic drinks, is not the normal province of millions of people. However, in case this comment is seen as "the politics of envy", I should add that the mind set of the average PBCC Ltd member is not particularly "normal" since it is conditioned by indoctrination and control. Otherwise, members would embrace family, relatives and former friends, who are not in the sect, and be able to socialise and share a meal with them, and so on. That is what normal people do!

      Finally, I am quite happy with my lot (thanks for asking) although I have very little, in terms of material possessions, I appreciate my days and what nature offers me. I spend a lot of my time in the great outdoors. I do not feel the need to take alcohol, or other stimulants.

      I hope this helps!

      #notapublicbenefit

      Delete
    4. Dear Mr Lee/Bored/Carson

      Para 1: The evidence of spin is in what is said and what has been left out (others have dealt at length, by now). I do not drink and am not possessed of a spinning mind.

      Para 2: I did not say the PBCC Ltd do not have charitable status; however they have to maintain it (not helped by the comments and attitudes of some of your associates (or multi personalities).

      Para 3. Normal folk tend not to be indoctrinated and jump to the command of a far off furniture salesman. In terms of materialism, it may come as a surprise to you, but minimum habitation of a detached house, plus people carrier, plus plenty of money for alcoholic luxuries is not the province of many normal folk.

      Para 5: I did not say the PBCC Ltd do not pay taxes; I merely pointed out that businesses can find ways to avoid tax, not normally possible for the ordinary PAYE payer.

      The PBCC do not question my life, or how I run my affairs, because I am an individual. I am not an organisation partly funded by the public, nor have I abused or damaged thousands of people over half a century.

      Yes, I am happy with my lot and am not dependant on material possessions; I am merely critical of iniquity; that I am allowed to do whatever my personal lot.

      I trust this helps...

      #notapublicbenefit

      Delete
  4. .... loss of charitable status would threaten the survival of the Hales Brethren....So to end the Hales Exclusive Brethren, we dont give them charity money to break up families and then they dont exist. Simples. If that happened, I might believe that there's a good god out there.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "They [the Charity Commission] have never told us what we must do to qualify for charitable status.

    This is a very serious matter for us.

    Already it has cost us well over two million pounds in legal fees, and this money has all been raised voluntarily from members, including young people."

    I'm speechless that, according to Peter Trevvett's account in September last year, the PBCC had already spent TWO MILLION POUNDS in legal fees, presumably to support their appeal on behalf of the Preston Down Trust.

    How can the PBCC hold their heads high after such an admission?

    Most charitable organisations, and certainly mainstream churches, understand what 'public benefit' entails and would not need to spend the smallest fraction of two million pounds on legal fees in order to establish that they were eligible for charitable status.

    Members of the PBCC who read this blog - operating for the public benefit provides you with a wonderful opportunity to open your meeting room doors, and your hearts, to welcome people in from the highways and byways. For the past half century James Taylor Jnr's teaching about separation from individuals (not eating or drinking with non-members) has brought shame on your group of Exclusive Brethren, but now you have encouragement from the Charity Commission to change your ways.

    I wish you well as you undertake this move towards inclusion and welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 2 million Pounds is astonishing!

    The also why was he subscribing to secret information from The global Intelligence Files?

    Again astonishing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Churches with 10 times more members wouldn't even have 2 million pounds. make that 100 times more.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I feel that we can no longer walk with Peter Trevvett.

    Amen

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mt Trevett
    You are clearly disingenuous "every member has personal faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as his (sic) personal Saviour."
    1. How do you know this?
    2. How many individual members of your church under the age of 50 have made a confession of faith before becoming a member of your church?
    3. Babes in arms become members of your church by virtue of partaking of the bread and wine at your remembrance meeting. Clearly they have not reached the age of understanding so it cannot be assumed that they are or will become believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Don't forget it was Peter Trevvett who was credited with the authorship of The Paul's Journeys book. http://laurencemoffitt.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/paul-journeys-with-note-from-of-god_27.html

    We've wondered if Mr T was Granny, or Mr Brethie too, or JosephF, or maybe Leonardo maybe too?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Peter Trevvett is the author of these books:

    “Israel - A History of the Jewish People from Abraham to the Present Day”, published in February 2006 by Mosedale Publications, Lancaster, UK.

    “Paul’s Journeys”, published in January 2013 by OneFocus EU Limited, Coventry. UK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have been reading Peter Trevvett’s book on the history of Israel, and found it very interesting. You can see my comments on it at
      http://wikipeebia.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=468#p3374

      Delete
  12. What spin? That letter by Peter Trewett was 100% factual and absolutely right.
    Thankfully the brethren are holding the ground.
    Don't reproach these people. They are beyond reproach.

    You bunch of small and mean minded miseries on here, always resist the power of the holy spirit. It's time to change your mindsets, repent and come to Christ.

    Leonardo J Octavianus



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry, but Peter's letter is not factually right. I will not name names until I have to, but I know people in the PBCC who do not even believe in God. They told me face to face at meetings in car parks where they thought they would be safe from being seen by fellow brethren. Imagine being in your 50's and having to sneak around to meet an old friend. Pathetic.

      To have unbelievers at your 'Lord's Supper' is making a mockery of Christianity. The only reason they are there is because the wife and family refuse to leave and they'll lose their job.

      Fancy having to experience the indignity of being searched before entering your 'Places of Public Worship'.

      We celebrate those within who manage to record the dross that passes for bible study and exposes the hypocrisy of having two types of meetings. One when members of the public are present, and the other when no members of the public are present.

      Delete
    2. Anon 09:05 Oh no need to apologise -
      Your type have long closed your ears and eyes, so that you may not hear, see, believe and be converted.
      You have rejected the very people that would love to help you.
      I would suggest there are some here that have over active imaginations which stems from deception by the devil.
      Many here doing the works of the devil and being held captive to his purposes to rob God. However, he will not succeed because God is going to have the most.

      See Anon - It's your mind-set to remain opposed to everything that is good and right. Saul also was intent on persecution of the saints, but he was smashed on the Damascus road by a great light. He changed the whole direction of his life.
      That's the only option left to all the wicked and bitter people on here.
      Now are you going to give-up your self will and come to the Lord?
      Whether you are the likes of Jill, Rev or Ian and the rest, it doesn't matter. You have to refuse the evil and choose the good. The grace of God is still available for you and I today - Don't despise the day of grace.

      Leonardo J Octavianus

      Delete
    3. Leonardo J Octavianus,
      Your post is clearly a spoof and a wind up

      Peter Trevvett,

      (Also possibly known as, John Handel, Handelj84, Frank Carson, Leonardo, Josh, Granny and many others.)

      Your letter is full of misinformation, deliberate confusion, falsehoods and is factually incorrect, I’ll just highlight a few of the issues -

      Peter, you say –
      “The Plymouth Brethren are sometimes called fundamental Christians. They originated in the 1820s. There are about 14,000 members in England and Wales, and some 45,000 world-wide”

      Yes the Plymouth Brethren originated in the 1820’s but then the group divided in 1848, which you fail to mention !. After this division two distinct separate groups were formed, each with very different practices and doctrines, a fact which you fail to mention !. One group was called the Open Brethren sometimes known as Christian Brethren or Plymouth Brethren and the other group was known as the Exclusive Brethren, both facts which you fail to mention !. In the Exclusive Brethren led by Bruce Hales, yes, there are 14k members in the UK (you miss Scotland), and about 45k worldwide, but these are NOT Plymouth Brethren as you imply, these are Exclusive Brethren, because the actual numbers of Open Brethren sometimes known as Christian Brethren or Plymouth Brethren are around 1 Million worldwide !!, none of which you mention !.

      Your letter is a straight deception designed to confuse and muddy the waters about the true identity of the group you write on behalf of.

      Peter, you say –
      “We do not know why the Charity Commission has acted against us”

      Yes you do.
      The letter from the Charity Commission of 7th June 2012 makes the situation very clear, which you fail to mention !. There have also been numerous updates and clarifications publicly published by the CC since June 2012, which you fail to mention !

      Peter, you say –
      “They have never told us what we must do to qualify for charitable status”

      That is an astonishing straight forward lie !
      By the time you wrote your letter in Sept 2013, negotiations had been going on with the CC since June 2012, that’s over 14 months, which you fail to mention !. The letter of 7th June 2012 also sets out key indicators for change, which you fail to mention ! as do many other documents publicly published by the CC, such as the criteria for the “Public Benefit Test”, (setting out what Charities need to do to meet the test and what they should not be doing), which you fail to mention !

      Peter, you say –
      “Already it has cost us well over two million pounds in legal fees, and this money has all been raised voluntarily from members, including young people”

      I doubt very much if the over £2 Mil mentioned is all on legal fees !. You fail to mention the rebranding, new website, glossy brochures, parliamentary lobbying inc parties, sudden acts of charity, marque pie days, giving away of bibles and brochures, etc, all of which happened after the 7th June 2012 letter from the CC.

      Peter, you say –
      “We invite you to appeal to the British Government to resolve this matter urgently so that freedom of worship is maintained for all Christians worldwide, and indeed for all faiths”

      The freedom of worship for Christians is NOT under threat and never has been !. The freedom to carry out acts of detriment and harm and divide families up under the cloak of Christianity IS under threat, but of course you fail to mention this too !

      Your letter is a straight deception designed to confuse and muddy the waters about the true identity of the group you write on behalf of and about the truth of the Charity Commissions actions and the case against the Exclusive Brethren

      Peter, you say –
      “Thank-you for listening to this story”

      Peter, you have spun a work of deceit, to sit happily on the shelf with the fiction and novels. As a reviewer would say –“an entertaining story but neither factual, truthful, or honest”

      Delete
    4. Leonardo....Glad you popped up here; thought you might be away on business. Now you are here, could you please address some questions left for you on the previous pages. Folk may not respect your contributions if you just pop up for a quick nip and then scuttle away again.

      Trevvet's letter was spin, more by what he left out, rather than included; the bit he did include, regarding over 100 years of charity, was rather more a lie than spin. What charitable acts started in about 1910 and have continued ever since? That is to say consistent acts of charity, such as with the poor, needy, homeless, destitute, and so on.

      As Anon (above) states, I also once heard from an Exclusive member that he had no awareness of God. Once again, you insult genuine Christians, and others, by implication that to criticise the PBCC, in any way, is an attack on Christianity. Now - that IS spin and was used in the frantic lobbying and misinformation by the PBCC contollors and, of course, it is the central theme in Trevvet's contribution, reproduced above.

      #notapublicbenefit


      Delete
    5. The one thing that we can glean from LJO's language is that he is a member of the PBCC.

      All the hackneyed PBCC sound bytes are there. 'Don't despise the day of grace', 'he was smashed on the Damascus road', 'give-up your self will ', 'rob God.'

      I wonder why he claims not to be? You wouldn't expect such blatant dishonesty from anyone, let alone from someone purporting to be Christian. If you have another cheek LJO, you'd be advised to turn it.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous17 March 2014 09:05 you said. "To have unbelievers at your 'Lord's Supper' is making a mockery of Christianity. The only reason they are there is because the wife and family refuse to leave and they'll lose their job."

      This sort of thing still happens in a number of Churches. Especially within the USA.

      Delete
    7. Apparently women are more susceptacle to fall into religion, probably because they are the weaker sex. A man needs a woman, and should always choose his kids over a religion

      Delete
  13. A word spoken in season by L Octavianus. Thank you.
    It's such a pity not to focus on the positive aspects of the PBCC/EB.
    Personally, I find it difficult to understand such hatred being expressed against these lovely people. I makes me wonder what provokes such a hostile attitude?
    The Nazis likewise persecuted the Jews (my own people) and expressed an unreasonable murderous hatred of God's own people. It's a warning from history, just how far off an educated people can go to descend to such depravity.

    The PBCC have a right to worship freely, as all Christians and Jews do and be afforded the protection of her Majesty's Government. As Peter also drew attention to - That freedom of worship has been hard-won by those who dared to stand-up for the truth. (Or words to the same effect) Shame on those who are opposed to those lovely people of faith. I have nothing, but admiration and respect for their courage and great faith.

    Don't rise-up against God's people because that's exactly what the Nazis did.
    They would have gone on to wipe-out Christianity too, but God stopped it.

    Anne Cohen

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anne,
      (also possibly known as Peter Trevvett, John Handel, etc etc)

      You say – “Personally, I find it difficult to understand such hatred being expressed against these lovely people”

      No one is “hating” about anything, what IS happening is Harm & Detriment caused by PBCC / EB is being exposed, which PBCC / EB don’t like ! The Charity Commission 55 page report of Jan 2014 is very clear -

      89. In summary the allegations received by the Commission and put to the PBCC related to:

      - The nature of the doctrines and practices of the PBCC generally;
      - The imposition and control of strict codes of behaviour pervading all aspects of life restricting freedom of choice through a centralised and authoritative system
      - the nature and impact of the Disciplinary Practices31;
      - Variations in the practice of disciplinary action of an arbitrary nature subject to the judgment of leaders and the assembly;
      - Harsh disciplinary action taken in relation to often minor deviation or transgression;
      - Physical separation of family members during disciplinary processes with family members living separate lives with little or no contact often leading to permanent divisions within families;
      - Detrimental impact on health and well-being of those subject to discipline and their family members; and
      - Lack of support and isolation from friends within the Brethren community.
      - the impact of the doctrines and practices on those who leave PBCC;
      - The exclusory effect on family life and relationships when members leave as a result of a complete severing of ties;
      - Where contact is made this is infrequent, the quality of any contact and relationship is impoverished;
      - Absence of assistance and support to those who leave including vulnerable children and young people;
      - Those who leave are ostracised and consequently treated differently from other members of the public;
      - Loss of social network; social isolation;
      - Impact on finances where persons have been dependant upon the Brethren for employment and mortgage;
      - Loss of inheritance where relatives remain and leave their property to the Brethren which is encouraged;
      - Inability to participate in funeral arrangements and services of Brethren relatives;
      - Threats of legal action against those who speak out against the Brethren; and
      - Fear and anxiety of repercussions for themselves and family members who remain in the Brethren.
      - the impact of the doctrines and practices on children within the PBCC.
      - Limitation on educational activities for children (e.g. limitations on the use of technology and censorship of materials within Brethren schools);
      - Limitation on social interaction with non-Brethren children within and outside of the school environment;
      - Inability to attend university as the lifestyle conflicts with Brethren principles and practices; and
      - Limited career opportunities due to restrictions on education and for girls who are expected to marry and have children.

      91. ……the Commission concluded, on balance, that there were elements of detriment and harm which emanated from doctrine and practices of the Brethren and which had a negative impact on the wider community as well as individuals.

      92. The Commission considered that there is evidence to support the view that there are elements of detriment and harm which are in real danger of outweighing public benefit…The most serious detriment and harm related, in the Commission’s view, to the allegations of the treatment of ex-Brethren and to the Disciplinary Practices. The Commission asked that the PBCC address these issues, which they were willing to do.

      Anne, these are the reasons for exposing Harm & Detriment perpetrated by PBCC / EB, those details are NOT Christian attributes, doctrines or practices, hence why they are being exposed !

      Your hyperbole about Nazi’s etc is just nonsense, the issue is NOT religious freedom, the issue is exposing and stopping practices of Harm & Detriment which NO religious organisation should have the freedom to carry out !

      Delete
    2. Does worshipping freely include the abuse of others?

      #napad

      Delete
    3. Rev - thank you for your lovely epistle, albeit of no consequence.
      It IS an issue of religious freedom actually and Peter's letter demonstrates this so well.

      However, we also are still waiting for honest answers to many of the questions put to you by Robert on several other blogs.
      Awaiting another lovely lengthy epistle from you in due course.

      Frank Lee Bored

      Delete
    4. Mr FLB
      (or is it Frank Carson, John Handel, Robert, or even Peter Trevvett himself !)

      You say –
      “Rev - thank you for your lovely epistle, albeit of no consequence”

      Mr FLB,
      Over 95% of my post 17 March 11:53 (to which you now reply), quotes directly from the Charity Commissions 55 page Jan 2014 report !!

      Your reply will further open the eyes of the UK Charity Commission as to the mindset and unconscionable unchristian harmful and detrimental actions of the PBCC

      Mr FLB have you read the CC report ? are you aware of what it exposes about the PBCC / EB ? are you aware of what it requires the PBCC / EB to do ?

      Mr FLB you now say the Charity Commission report contents of Jan 2014, are of “no consequence” !! Why do you say that ?

      You say –
      “It IS an issue of religious freedom actually and Peter's letter demonstrates this so well”

      Mr FLB,
      If that’s what you think then I really feel for you. Your letter (Peter Trevvetts) is full of falsities, which, anyone with access to publicly available documents, or just a tiny amount of research can easily prove & expose !

      The religious freedom of Christians worldwide, or in the UK is not in doubt or in question, it never has been. What is being scrutinised and exposed is the Harm & Detriment perpetrated by the PBCC / EB !

      What clearly is in doubt, is the ability of religious organisations to perpetrate Harm & Detriment while spuriously trying to claim religious freedom immunities to evade exposure allowing continued Harm & Detriment ! that is very wrong.

      What clearly is in doubt is the use and abuse of religious freedom to allow religious organisations to perpetrate Harm & Detriment with impunity. That is not how religious freedom laws work, they exist to protect people and groups, they do NOT exist to protect the abusers or harmful organisations !

      Mr FLB, as another has asked, does worshipping freely as you the PBCC see fit include the freedom to abuse and create harm and detriment ? please let us all know ?

      You say –
      “However, we also are still waiting for honest answers to many of the questions put to you by Robert on several other blogs”

      Mr FLB,
      Please point out to me so all readers can see where these questions are that remain unanswered ?, you must have something particular in mind, or you wouldn’t have mentioned it, (unless of course you just want to create confusion & mischief !), so please let us all know what hasn’t been answered, or answered honestly as you so claim ?

      Delete
    5. Hold on, Mr Bored....there's a whole raft of questions for Leonardo, but he just doesn't want to answer them. As far as I can see, Rev answers all the questions, at great length. They say the truth hurts; this seems to be why those who oppose him (and others) do so only with personal abuse and rants. They are, it seems, incapable of recognising logic, facts, or the truth.

      Johnnie Walker

      Delete
  14. Thank you Anne - Indeed your people have suffered unspeakable persecution, not only in Hitler's day, but going back many many hundreds of years.
    I can see you already have a very clear judgement of who the brethren are.
    Sadly there are a minority of persons here as shown-up / exposed on Rev's post, who express the same unreasonable hatred. What is true, always provokes a violent reaction. It is the devil himself - no less.

    However, God would say - "Come let us reason together" -
    Not on our terms, but his. Not our will, but his. So then - His will is certainly to be done and will prevail against the hatred of what is good and right.

    Furthermore, here is nothing false about Peter's letter. If anything, he understates just how, charitable, sincere and true the PBCC are.
    We should not be shocked by the reaction of the devil. His time is increasingly short. He is desperate to rob God and it's evidently clear some are in his grasp.

    Rev - Why not surrender your hatred and self will to the wonderful person of Christ? Today if you hear his voice, harden not your heart.
    He is able, willing and ready to save you and each one of us to the uttermost.

    No Rev - This is not a wind-up, but yes it will provoke a hostile reaction.

    Leonardo J Octavianus

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Leonardo....Peter Trevvett acknowledges other religions as brothers and friends; but you tell us that the PBCC Ltd are the people in whom God has found his delight. Could you please expand on this a little, for us, and explain the position of billions of other inhabitants of the world?

      Are you and Peter Trevvett singing from the same hymn book? Or, perhaps, PT is attempting to gloss over the true separatist and elitist position of the Hales division (PBCC Ltd). This is spinning, in case you are unaware of the meaning of the term.

      More questions for you to answer - quite a backlog now!

      #notapublicbenefit

      Delete
    2. Leonardo J Octavianus,

      You say – “Rev - Why not surrender your hatred and self will to the wonderful person of Christ? Today if you hear his voice, harden not your heart. He is able, willing and ready to save you and each one of us to the uttermost.”

      Leonardo, I am already a Christian saved by His Blood and part of His Assembly, His Body on earth, which is why I speak out exposing the false teaching of the PBCC / EB. The Holy Scriptures which are His Word clearly indicate PBCC / EB practices & doctrines are false, harmful and unchristian which is why I speak out, not because of anything on my part but because of what His Word teaches

      You say – “Furthermore, here is nothing false about Peter's letter.”

      Leonardo, if that’s what you think then I really feel for you. Your letter (Peter Trevvetts) is full of falsities, which, anyone with access to publicly available documents, or just a tiny amount of research can easily prove & expose !

      You say – “God would say - "Come let us reason together" - Not on our terms, but his. Not our will, but his. So then - His will is certainly to be done and will prevail against the hatred of what is good and right.”

      So Leonardo J Octavianus “let us reason together” on Gods terms which are His Word in the Holy Bible, not on our will, but on His terms which are in the Holy Bible, as His will is certainly to be done and He will prevail against hatred of His Word and against hatred of what is good and right !

      Therefore, please explain using Gods Word from the Holy Bible (which are His terms not ours), where the justification is for the following doctrines & practices of the PBCC / EB which create Harm and Detriment

      - Members not allowed freedom of religion to eat, drink, worship, fellowship, commune with any other Christian in any other Christian Church

      - Members not allowed freedom of religion to leave the PBCC / EB to go to a different Christian Church (part of the Body of Christ), without incurring punitive penalties

      - Penalties which include dividing of families, separating parents, children, husbands, wives, grandparents, aunts, uncles, friends etc. Potentially losing house and job in the process

      - Teaching that a former leader JT Junior who was an alcoholic and found in bed with another mans wife is a “pure man of god”

      - Teaching all other Christian Churches and the Christians in those Churches outside the walls of the PBCC / EB are not fit to associate with

      - Members not allowed freedom of religion to marry Christians outside the walls of the PBCC / EB, Christians who are part of the Body of Christ

      - Former members not allowed to eat or drink with relatives still inside the walls of PBCC / EB, even if those former members are Christians

      - Former members not allowed to attend weddings or funerals of relatives still inside the walls of the PBCC / EB even if those former members are Christians

      - Members must obey the transcribed and published words (ministry) of former and current leaders even if that ministry is contrary to what Gods Word teaches in Scripture

      - Members are taught “you cant be a Christian if you leave” the group

      - Allowing babes in arms to take the communion elements with no confession of faith required.

      - Not allowing Christians in known good standing ie not taking part in evil, to join with the PBCC at the Lords Table and share in Communion, unless those persons first of all convert to and join the PBCC

      Leonardo J Octavianus, I could list much more, but this will start our “let us reason together” on Gods terms which are His Word in the Holy Bible, not on our will, but on His terms which are in the Holy Bible

      So, Leonardo J Octavianus, please explain using Gods Word from the Holy Bible (which are His terms not ours), where the justification is for the harmful and detrimental practices and doctrines detailed above ?

      Delete
    3. Hello LJO,

      I do not hate the Exclusive Brethren. I hate the false doctrines preached as the word of God while being the words of man. I abhor my Saviour's name being attached to such detriment and harm as though it was done in His Name.

      If the words of the HEB leader are indeed the words of God, I'm ready to be corrected. Show me the proof. Show me the Bible verses *in context* for the life-style and practices that I cannot reconcile with my reading of The Bible.

      Delete
    4. Leonardo J Octavianus

      You have been asked if you believe in The Bible
      I am sure you are aware and have chosen not to answer

      1) Would you please give an answer
      2) Would you tell us why you did not give an answer

      Vic R Paul

      Delete
    5. Rev - Thank you for your senseless rant.

      Sadly you have no place in The Assembly (there is only one) and you cannot claim to know the Lord because your works are exceedingly wicked. All your claims are thus clearly empty and void of credibility. This means you have nothing to bring against the PBCC.
      There is no issue with them. God has an issue with you.

      Frank Lee Bored

      Delete
    6. Frank. If that is your level of debate, it is no wonder people think the Exclusive Brethren are a cult. No one shred of evidence, just an angry rant trying to belittle Bro Rev. Very sad. Very unchristian.

      Delete
  15. I have the impression that Anne Cohen and Leonardo J Octavianus don't at all understand the loss sustained (because of separation) by many contributors to this blog. Here's my personal experience. I apologise for its length.

    Part One

    As a young French teacher at my school in Sussex, a member of the Taylorite Exclusive Brethren, M, was kind and supportive to me in 1957 when mother was dying and I was taking my A Levels. M left my school that July and moved elsewhere to teach. By then she was engaged to S.

    M stayed in touch with me. She sent me photographs of her wedding (I still have them), and the day after her first child was born in 1959 she wrote me a letter to tell me about his birth. She said she hoped I would have that wonderful experience one day. As a young woman with no female relatives I remember thinking then, "Lovely! If I ever have children I'll be able to share the experience with M."

    In 1960, M wrote to me about her daughter’s birth and in 1962 she told me that another daughter had arrived. In 1963, I heard about a second son's birth. Ours was just a normal, happy friendship by correspondence and M kept me informed of her change of address.

    In 1964, however, M wrote that she could no longer have anything to do with me and told me that she hadn't "lived according to [her] light" when she had known me. I was baffled. There had been no darkness in our relationship, none whatsoever.

    In 1967, our first son was born. I'd have loved to have picked up the phone to M. I did write to her. There was no reply.

    Four decades passed. I thought of M often. Then in 1986 an Exclusive Brethren family moved into the large house across the road from us. Ours is a small terraced house with the kitchen at the front, and from our kitchen window I would sometimes look at the carloads arriving for Sunday lunch in the Brethren home and hope I might catch a glimpse of M. I never did.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Part Two

    In March 2003, the BBC showed an 'Everyman' programme about the Brethren. It was late in the evening and I didn't watch it, but a neighbour called next day with the video for me to watch. When I played it, I heard M's laugh and saw a young woman who looked rather like my memory of her. I rewound the tape and saw M’s maiden surname on the screen. I telephoned my husband at his work and said, "I've found M!"

    I was newly energised to find my friend and went, as I had done once or twice before during M’s forty year absence, to the local Public Library and spent time looking through a pile of telephone directories for her. Eventually I alighted on a possible address. I wrote a tribute letter to M and posted it. Three months later I received her reply. She wrote that she "couldn't have wished for a better tribute".

    In January 2004, I arrived at M’s house, at her invitation, with an armful of beautiful red tulips. We hadn't seen each other for 46 years. She had previously told me on the telephone that she couldn't invite me to lunch - it wasn't personal, it was a  matter of principle, she said. I had replied, "It's very personal, M." We had a lovely afternoon together. M commented that in being kind to me so long ago she had “done one thing useful in [her] life after all" and she gave me a 'New Translation'. I gave her husband a 'Reunion Rag' which a composer friend of ours had written specially for the occasion. (Over cups of tea and biscuits way back in 1957 M had told me that S was a pianist, and I knew he liked playing rags.)

    In March 2005, I wrote a little song in French for M's birthday. I sang it to our musician friend who prepared the manuscript for an accordion accompaniment (I knew that M’s husband played the accordion). The song ended with this verse:

    Longtemps, longtemps, longtemps après que je te perds de vue,
    Je suis ravie de découvrir que tu n’es plus perdue.
    Et pour fêter tes printemps je compose ce souvenir
    De mon estime continuelle et t’adresse un sourire.


    I want to be able to write to William Shawcross, Chair of the Charity Commission, and tell him that all the members of the PBCC with whom I'm in contact love their neighbour as themselves - as M so memorably did half a century ago. 


    ReplyDelete
  17. I have to say I’m puzzled why the likes of Rev bother to argue with these moronic individuals on this thread. To argue from a Christian church perspective almost gives credence to the PBCC, as being a Christian church. It is not.

    It’s easy to trot out the old phrases like 'Don't despise the day of grace', 'he was smashed on the Damascus road', 'give-up your self will ', 'rob God.' But look at what the PBCC is really about.

    Their leader from 1959-1970 – an alcoholic lecherous womanizer. FACT!! Possibly a pedophile (alleged) – a victim has been compensated.
    Leaders since – alcoholic family wreckers, some more vicious than others. Money grabbing, controlling, manipulative conmen – and the like of Leonardo still trots out nonsense like “What spin? Thankfully the brethren are holding the ground. Don't reproach these people. They are beyond reproach.”

    Drunkenness, lechery, possibly adultery, possibly pedophilia; abuse of women and children, breaking up of families – beyond reproach?

    “You bunch of small and mean minded miseries on here, always resist the power of the holy spirit. It's time to change your mindsets, repent and come to Christ.”

    Nothing to do with the Holy Spirit or Christ. Change it to “come to Bruce” and we won’t need to argue with you.

    So Ang Ree

    ReplyDelete
  18. I only noticed today, Peter Trevvett's letter is dated September 2013, wherein he claims the Charity Commissioners had not yet explained their inability to register Preston Down as a charity. Strange that, when in January 2013 Third Sector reported the reasons from the Commissioners: http://www.thirdsector.co.uk/Governance/article/1165267/charity-commission-reasons-refusing-charitable-status-plymouth-brethren-included-doctrine-separation/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theophilus 18 March 2014 08:25

      Your observation of just one of the falsities in Peter Trevvetts letter is correct. My post of 17 March 2014 09:59 details that example and many others, hence why I said in that post that Peters letter dated Sept 2013 is –

      “full of misinformation, deliberate confusion, falsehoods and is factually incorrect”

      “a work of deceit, to sit happily on the shelf with the fiction and novels. As a reviewer would say –“an entertaining story but neither factual, truthful, or honest”

      Peter Trevvett’s letter of Sept 2013 says -
      “We do not know why the Charity Commission has acted against us”

      Peter, you are being deceitful. You and the PBCC were 'fully' aware of the reasons when you wrote your Sept 2013 letter, as the Charity Commission had written to the Exclusive Brethren PBCC on 7th June 2012 (I have a copy of that letter) setting out the reasons over 12 months earlier !. There have been numerous updates, public reports (as highlighted by Theophilus), articles, clarifications published by the CC (I have copies of many of them), and others since June 2012, so to claim ignorance, or be in denial, is a lie.

      Peter Trevvett’s letter of Sept 2013 says –
      “They have never told us what we must do to qualify for charitable status”

      Peter, you are again being deceitful. You and the PBCC were 'fully' aware of what you needed to do when you wrote your letter of Sept 2013, as the Charity Commission wrote to the Exclusive Brethren PBCC on 7th June 2012 (I have a copy of that letter), setting out the issues, that’s well over 12 months prior to your letter of Sept 2013 !. That 7th June 2012 letter also sets out key indicators for change, as do many other documents publicly published by the CC (which I have copies of), and other public articles (as highlighted by Theophilus), since June 2012. So to claim ignorance, or be in denial, is a lie.

      In addition, when you wrote your letter in Sept 2013, negotiations between the CC & PBCC had been active since June 2012, that’s well over 12 months of negotiations. Yet in your Sept 2013 letter you then claim the CC haven’t told the PBCC / EB what they needed to do during that time !

      Furthermore, in the 12 months prior to your letter of Sept 2013, both the PBCC and Charity Commission had appeared in Parliamentary Committee evidence sessions, the CC appearing multiple times to give evidence, updates and further clarifications, all Parliamentary evidence sessions are recorded. From the content of your Sept 2013 letter are you now saying the CC was lying !

      Peter Trevvett,
      The UK Charity Commission will be very keen to examine how you and the PBCC have misrepresented their corporate integrity and how you and the PBCC have lied about the communication from the Charity Commission and tried to create mischief and confusion about Charity Commission negotiations and information

      Delete
  19. To be fair...lying is instinctive behaviour within the PBCC Ltd hierarchy. I don't think they can help it any more, without some form of counselling.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anne Cohen 17 March 2014 10:27

    Why not focus on the positive side of the Nazis?
    They gave us the German Automobiles, Audis, BMWs, Mercedes, Volkswagens
    They had discipline, their officers and their families were well cared for, they had their own propaganda, and they taught us to worship a man on the earth

    An enlightening film for you to see is ‘Sophie’s Choice’
    In it you see an actress playing well, the anguish of her life destroyed, her family cruelly taken from her and finally suicide

    Right current, while the Charity Commission matter is going on, the EB have destroyed my life, my marriage and cruelly taken away my family. Yes, up, down and siblings. They have laughed that I may have committed suicide, and still done nothing to help, rather the opposite. People are right to hate the way the EB are

    The similarities of the EB to the Nazis are alarming, all MPs should take note
    It’s about the freedom to worship Hitler, Hales & Hell

    The Exclusive Brethren in their present form are an Affront To God
    The Exclusive Brethren are an attack on Christianity
    The Exclusive Brethren do not value or respect the Holy Bible
    The Exclusive Brethren are Cruel, Evil, Deceitful Bullies
    The Exclusive Brethren destroy families and lives, without warning or any reason to do so

    NO CHRISTIAN SHOULD, OR CAN SUPPORT THE EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN AT ALL

    All true Christians are called upon to act and fully renounce and oppose the EB in their present form
    They have a responsibility to do this before God and to My Saviour, The Lord Jesus

    Peter T

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yes....I am always a little concerned when an artful commentator launches the Nazi theme as it is surely bound to return and bite someone on a copious bottom! How often have I heard a local enforcer described as a "little Hitler". The dreaded priestly pair knocking on the door at night. The worst excesses happening on the ground, as local enforcers vie to carry out the "orders" from HQ. I wonder where, on the spectrum of political activity, the Exclusive brethren would be "directed" to vote, assuming participation in the "democratic" process was being stressed at this juncture of the testimony. My feeling is as far right as they could indecently get.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The PBCC must genuinely be the most difficult organisation to infiltrate in the whole world. The reason being that no other organisation on the planet is as paranoid, suspicious or less trusting (even of it's own members). It is therefore most encouraging to get live recordings of meetings and all the latest ministry sent direct from unhappy members themselves. It is from within that this ghastly organisation is and will continue to be exposed.

    ReplyDelete