Loading...

Thursday, 14 August 2014

These great men and their cash cow

“It's good being the MOG.” That is confirmed by what Jim Taylor said in Reigate. 

He said, “It's a good thing to make money as a universal leader, you know. Very good to make money that way. If you don't get any mail in the morning you cry your eyes out!” See Ministry of J. T. Jr. Vol. 145 page 60 (Reigate, July 1970) 




31 comments:

  1. Mr Taylor is on record as demanding money on numerous occasions, and he preferred to be paid cash-in-hand, not by cheque, even if the money was being sent by post. He gave various reasons for this: he didn’t want to be bothered with book-keeping, he didn’t want to read and write letters and he didn’t want outsiders to find out about his payments. Here it is explained in his own words.

    Ministry of J.T.Jr. Vol. 23 pages 68-69 (Birmingham, 12-14 July 1963)
    K.M. What is the point in giving cash rather than cheques?
    J.T.Jr. Because cheques are not cash. Cheques are not money.

    Ministry of J.T.Jr. Vol. 23 pages 162-163 (Banbury, 17 July 1963)
    Ques. Regarding the matter of money that you have mentioned, have you something in your mind as to the use of cheques and cash?
    J.T.Jr. It is not talking about cheques here, it is money, not cheques, they carry the money with them. We get it in cash and we give cash. It is a very good thing to have a brother hand you the money and you thank him. You do not need letters anyway; it saves a lot of letter writing, and letter reading, and book-keeping. Get down to the fact of things and simplicity, what is meant in scripture.
    E.J.M. Is it also consistent with what you have been saying as to the assembly not being exposed?
    J.T.Jr. We keep ourselves out of sight as much as we can; that is the mystery. Of course in the gospel testimony you bring yourself out, you go out in the public, and administrative matters are apt to get out in the public because somebody is not true. Things get out to the world, they may get out from persons who have come under discipline.
    [. . .]
    S.B. I am not quite clear as to what you have in mind. Supposing you collected money for a brother or for an assembly and it was eighty miles away; it might not be convenient to take it as money, then a cheque would be very convenient, would it not?
    J.T.Jr. Why a cheque?
    S.B. I do not know how else it could be sent except by postal order or money order, unless someone pays your train fare to go to deliver it.
    J.T.Jr. You can send money in this country. It is not illegal, is it?
    R.T.H. You can send money by registered post.
    J.T.Jr. You need not have it registered here. Have you not any faith? Letters usually get to their destination.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Jim was a man who feared God rather than man. One can tell from the photo that here was a man in the gain of eternal life conditiions. By the way, all those accusations against him were found to be trumped up by persons who rejected the current word at that time. Chumps l say...

      Delete
  2. Readers, unfamiliar with the Exclusive Brethren (PBCC Ltd) will, no doubt, be very surprised at the nonsense that passes for "ministry" in this sect/cult. In this particular example, the focus being on how to avoid "taxing" questions and the need to hide from scrutiny. All subsidised by the public. It's a scandal! CC please take note!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They will only take note if you share this with them!

      Delete
  3. 'matters are apt to get out in the public because somebody is not true'

    Ministry of J.T.Jr. Vol. 23 pages 162-163 (Banbury, 17 July 1963)

    'We welcome scrutiny, that is not a problem to us. If any of the members have further questions they would like to send in or approach us about, we welcome it. We have nothing to hide.'

    Garth Christie Public Administration Committee of the House of Commons on 30 October 2012 under the chairmanship of the Rt Hon Bernard Jenkin MP

    Bit of an anomaly here, to say nothing about the strange use of the word 'true'!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I seem to remember that the last meeting JTJnr was at in NY (Sept/Oct 1970) before he died was all about money, and people not giving enough, with him demanding more. It was published a few years ago either on Peebs.net or an earlier site.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps you are referring to Readings at Nostrand Avenue and Other Ministry, Volume 11, which contains transcripts of 6 – 8th October 1970 that show the Taylorite Brethren doing their best to cope with depleted numbers after the Aberdeen and New York crises, and requesting cash, perhaps in response to a reduced cash flow.

      Ministry of J. Taylor Jr. Vol. 148 also contains many demands for money even before the Aberdeen crisis. Two or three examples are enough to give the flavour of it.

      Ministry of J. Taylor Jr. Vol. 148 page 184
      “This is a show, didn’t you know that? And it’s cheap. You don’t have to pay anything until you’re going out. And, boy, we’ll strip you when you’re going out. We took it off you last night, but tonight,— we only got about four hundred dollars last night, I’m guessing, but we’re going to get about four thousand tonight, and we’re going to get it by cleaning out your pockets, not by yourself, by inspectors! You never heard of such ministry. Well, what do you think this is? Do you think this is a free-for-all? No, we make money here, and it all comes to me. How do you think I live anyway?”

      Ministry of J. Taylor Jr. Vol. 148 page 193
      “This is the gospel. You never heard such a gospel before, and I’m going to make money out of this meeting. The whole of my object is to make money. Do you hear, you little fellows there? My object is to make money. Nothing else!”

      Ministry of J. Taylor Jr. Vol. 148 page 128
      “Ques. Shouldn’t we tell the brethren what we want the money for?
      J.T.Jr. No, you don’t have to do that.”

      Delete
  5. Says it all, really. The Exclusive Brethren (PBCC) are just another "Christian" con group, along with all those who have been exposed over the years for their profiteering from the gullible. Early 20th. c American author, Sinclair Lewis, wrote about such shenanigans in his novel "Elmer Gantry".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EB as a group are the conned - their leaders are the conmen. How on earth can the rank and file members not see how they are being taken for a ride?

      Delete
    2. I tend to infer the leader and hierarchy, when discussing the EB (PBCC).

      Delete
  6. Many probably can, Larry, but the price - of losing parents and children - may be too great.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure many can see through it as you say. And I am sure, as in our day, they will know who each other are. They need to act in unison so no individual is in isolation. If enough lead then others, as happened in the past, will undoubtedly follow. It takes just a few people with guts and integrity to start the process.

      Delete
  7. According to the Charity Commission's 2014 requirements, there should be no price to pay for walking away. In fact the PBCC are to be helpful and supportive when people do decide to leave.

    I abhor the way PBCC keep tabs on leavers. I know of someone who left 50 years ago, currently lives in a place that is genuinely quite hard to find, but the PBCC have told him that they know exactly where he lives. I find that somewhat akin to stalking.

    When I moved house, the PBCC called at both my neighbours to find out where we had gone. If we're meant to be treated as dead to them and having 'lost everything' why the hell do they still bother? My PBCC sister has moved, I haven't got a clue where she has gone and frankly I couldn't be less bothered.

    Thank goodness for friends we can rely on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Did JT Senior give ministry about money, business, power?

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Paul asks, “Did JT Senior give ministry about money, business, power?”

      The Subject Index to the ministry of J.T.Sr. published in 1964 and its supplement published in 1965 contain no mention of business, two entries about money and the entries about power are mostly about the power of God.

      Compare this with the subject index to the ministry of BDH, published in 2011. It contains 369 entries about business, 66 entries about money, and the entries about power are mostly not about the power of God.

      Indirectly a lot of BDH’s ministry is about the power that the MoG wields over his flock. For instance the index contains 361 entries about “these great men,” 106 entries about leadership, 117 entries about obedience and 48 entries about submission. It contains no entries at all about some of the traditional Christian topics such as worship, atonement or missionary work, topics that were prominent in the ministry of JND.

      The only thing I remember JT saying about business is that he didn’t think the Lord would make a very good businessman. I suppose he meant that the most successful businessmen and the followers of Christ have two very different sets of values.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Ian
      Sorry for delay

      On the one hand , it is interesting to see the movement with subsequent leaders, but I find this line worrying - 'It contains no entries at all about some of the traditional Christian topics'.
      May be more can come out as to the omission of basic Christian references

      Paul

      Delete
  9. Yes Paul, but you don't want to be found setting off one of these great men's ministry against another! Begs the question 'why keep a bookcase full of PBCC doctrines that endlessly contradict each other'? I think this is possibly where BDH's constant and very annoying confusion as to dates and places hails from.....pun intended. Was it '72? '74? '77 maybe? In Barbados? Or was it Winnipeg?..........Dross.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Paul - you may be interested in this extract from James Taylor Snr's ministry given in London on 20 October, 1945. You will find it recorded on pages 11-12 of 'New Series Vol.60'.


    Ques. How should the matter of providing for the food of the brethren during the interval at such meetings as this be regarded? Is it an assembly matter, or does it come under individual giving?

    J.T. I think it is individual. It should be done by the brethren, of course, but done as if you were entertaining them in your house, at your table. It is not on the level of the Lord's supper where we eat and drink as an act of fellowship. The point to understand is that it is not on the same level as the fellowship of the Lord's supper. The use of the word fellowship [this word is printed in italics] in the Lord's supper, is on a different level from ordinary eating and drinking. There may be persons here today, perhaps not converted at all, or not in fellowship, but they partake of the bounty of the saints; that in itself shows it is not on the same level as the Lord's supper, and the assembly must be maintained on its proper level. The Corinthians were not doing this.

    Ques. Do you mean that because it is not on the level of the Lord's supper, it is not right to meet the expenses from the collections taken on that occasion?

    J.T. Quite so.


    (Incidentally - it seems that in 1945 James Taylor Snr considered it normal for brethren to entertain non-brethren people to meals in their homes. Those were the days of the 'bounty of the saints' but, sadly, in the 1960s James Taylor Jnr changed all that.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed Joan. In fact J.T is so clear when he states ' It is not on the level of the Lord's supper where we eat and drink as an act of fellowship and 'The use of the word fellowship [this word is printed in italics] in the Lord's supper, is on a different level from ordinary eating and drinking'.

      So why do the PBCC now claim that the separation/eating issue has always been core to their beliefs?

      Is it that cornering lord again?

      Delete
    2. Thank you Joan

      Am I right in thinking this is a reference to the refreshments served at seat in the meeting hall, in JT's times?
      This stopped in the 60's, and no catering was in the meeting or grounds
      Then in the 00's, refreshments came back in the form of in marquees in the carpark and grander. This would all be paid for by the local assembly (not individuals), contrary to JT's ministry

      As to fellowship in the loaf and cup, may be I'm wrong, but I regard it not as with any earthly person, congregation, minister, church or system, but as individual and personal between The Lord and myself

      Paul

      Delete
  11. Forgive me for returning again so soon.

    It always surprises me that people in the PBCC don't wince when they read some of the things James Taylor Jnr said; but only this month I've learnt from a senior UK 'brother' that to draw these brethren's attention to how brethren behaved before the 1960s is unacceptable and viewed as criticising their current sincerely held beliefs.

    That puts me in a quandary because at a critical moment in my young life in 1957 I was the beneficiary of the bounty of one of these 'saints'. I also know from my general reading that it wasn't only where I lived that these Brethren were hospitable and friendly to non-Brethren people. Caroline Moorehead has just published (Chatto & Windus) her much praised "Village of Secrets - Defying the Nazis in Vichy France" where you can read how these Darbyites, along with other Protestants in Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, sheltered Jewish children in WW2, and on at least two recorded occasions even worshipped with non-Brethren Christians in their village.

    Similarly, the scientist/doctor Eric Glaser remembers how the Exclusive Brethren in Wuppertal, Germany, behaved between 1946-1949, when he was a young member of EB scientist Dr Elsie Widdowson's research team in the town:


    Elsie had a group of friends in Wuppertal, the nature of whom threw an interesting light on Elsie's personality. On Sundays Elsie often disappeared for a while to see some German acquaintances and take them gifts of clothing, soap and other unobtainable items that had been sent to her from England for them. There was little interest in who these acquaintances might be, but as Christmas approached, we were all invited to meet them. They turned out to be a fundamentalist Christian group (much disliked, even persecuted by the Nazis), and quite unlike other Germans we met. Most Germans were obsequious, some still arrogant, many understandably suspicious, and none friendly. These were simple straightforward good people. If I remember right, we enjoyed their simple hospitality and sang carols that were common to England and Germany.

    Page 171 of "McCance and Widdowson - A Scientific Partnership of 60 Years"

    ReplyDelete
  12. Joan, Wrong view of the brethren and you know it -

    You have a habit of Cherry Picking what is deemed acceptable in your eyes.
    Regarding the practice of the brethren in"1945" the world was a very different place to the "1960s" God is unchangeable, but he does react to a changing world and leads us from it. That goes right back to the people of God in Egypt.
    They were led out of the world in effect and away from its snares.

    The brethren were therefore directed and wisely moved further away from the world as the so called Pop culture emerged. Now look at the rate of divorce and the lonely single parents which is blighting our society and ruining many. Take a long hard look Joan and suddenly the PBCC seem to have many things right.
    It's very clear on hindsight, Mr Jim led the brethren away from the threat against the traditional family as set-up by God. Separation to this extent was only a matter of time and the PBCC haven't looked back. Do you love God or this world?
    See- If you love your life in this world, you will lose it.

    Are you going to continue going backwards or are you going to obey God's word?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you support the Hales Brethren, as you seem to, I would have expected you to appreciate Joan’s post, because it spells out some examples of noble and admirable things the Brethren did in the past. It is strange that you say this is a wrong view of the Brethren. What is wrong about it?

      However, you are right when you say that the world in 1945 was very different from the 1960s. There was more poverty, theft, illness, death, sexual abuse, rape, violence, racism, sexism, cruelty and ignorance in nearly all the countries where these factors have been recorded. Your suggestion that separation became more important at a later date because things became worse is just not credible. Very few things in the world became worse between 1945 and the 1960s.

      I would also suggest that it is bordering on blasphemy to attribute Jim Taylor’s ministry to God. Have you read it? What sort of God would be the source of anything so false, immoral and malevolent?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous
      Please answer a few simple questions:-
      1.Which scripture would justify not eating with other believers in the Lord Jesus such as Joan?
      2. Which scripture would support unsaved infants partaking of the Lord's Supper which JT senior described as being on a different level from sharing a meal?
      3. How does an infant partaking of the Lord's Supper seek to comply with 1 Corinthians ch 11 verse 28. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of the bread.....
      Perhaps you would be good enough to answer these genuine queries about the scriptures.
      Incidentally the use of the phrase "cherry picking" is somewhat surprising coming from a supporter of the Exclusive Brethren who are expert at "cherry picking" scriptures (usually out of context) to justify their practices.

      Delete
    3. This sounds like the return of Leonardo!

      As I note the the EB's involvement in business, finance and the love of materialism, it would seem that they are very much of the world and love it very much; unlike those more honest introverted sects, such as The Amish, and others, who live simple lives of self sufficiency.

      "Mr Jim", the discredited, alcoholic hypocrite, rather than leading the Brethren away from the threat against the traditional family, provided the greatest threat of all by his abusive and ill conceived doctrines of separation that had no foundation in Scripture.

      This ridiculous assertion that the world suddenly changed, because of rock and roll, is banal. There was a popular culture long before that. As it happens, the proliferation of devices, now permitted within the brethren to maximise wealth, is giving young PBCC members an opportunity to evade controls to access popular culture.

      Separation is a hypocritical dogma enforced to protect the power, business and financial structure of the leader and hierarchy.

      I do believe it is the above contributor who is going backwards and who is clearly confused and tied up in dogma that has no substance, except in the minds of bigots.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 20 August 2014 11:42
      Do the Exclusives have divorce, separations, single parents or children missing a parent?

      They do. May be a lower proportion than the world, but they are individually far more severe
      I have come across many worldly divorces where the parents now get on well, work together and share the children. Hatred is not there, but rather respect and love

      The idea of separation in families is not God's idea, yet the Exclusives practice it and support it

      Mike


      Delete
    5. Anonymous of 20 August 2014 11:42,

      If you support the Hales Brethren, as you seem to, I would have expected you to appreciate Joan’s last two posts, because they spell out some examples of noble and admirable things the Brethren did in the past. It is strange that you say this is a wrong view of the Brethren. What is wrong about it?

      However, you are right when you say that the world in 1945 was very different from the 1960s. In 1945 there was more poverty, theft, illness, death, sexual abuse, rape, violence, racism, sexism, bigotry, cruelty and ignorance in nearly all the countries where these factors have been recorded. Your suggestion that separation became more important at a later date because things became worse is just not credible. Very few things in the world became worse between 1945 and the 1960s.

      I would also suggest that it is bordering on blasphemy to attribute Jim Taylor’s ministry to God. Have you read it? What sort of god could be the source of anything so false, immoral and malevolent?

      Delete
  13. For me, I'm going to obey God's word which means putting those evil family-breaking conmen far behind me. I only wish you could see that those who have power over you and your money (which has just paid for a $12m mansion for a leader who may not even believe in God) are just conmen and nothing to do with God or following God's word. I feel so sorry for you - how hard it must be to find out years after worshipping a conman that you have been duped. All I can say is there's no better time than to get rid of it and start again than now. I do so hope you can, and find liberty to worship God (the real one) or not, as you choose.

    RLS

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous 20 August 2014 11.42
    To suggest that "Mr Jim led the brethren away from the threat against the traditional family as set up by God" beggars belief.
    The so called ministry of James Taylor junior brought about the break-up of family ties including that of husband and wife. Do you really consider that was pleasing to God?
    James Taylor junior and his successors as world leader of the Exclusive Brethren have caused untold misery in countless families during the past 54 years and they will have to answer to God for what they have done.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Perhaps the Anonymous critic above might explain about Taylor being found in bed with a naked woman who was not his wife. This cannot be denied as it was attested ti in a Court of Law. In what way was this leading people away from the world and protecting the family?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous 20 August 2014 11.42 - would this be the same James Taylor who was found in bed with a naked woman who was not his wife? Does this behaviour count as traditional family as set up by God? This behaviour was attested to as true in a Court of law.

    ReplyDelete