A question

Forum rules
Please note: This forum allows the use of anonymous usernames and is a public forum. This means that there probably are members of the PBCC active in the forums. They may try to befriend you with the intention of gathering information that should not get out into the public domain. Be very careful what you say to persons that you do not know. Bear in mind too, that use of a username on another site or forum may not necessarily be the same person on WP with the same username. There have also been actions of copying what is said here to use elsewhere. This is not allowed. Please read the forum rules properly. Full forum rules can be found at http://wikipeebia.com/forum
Post Reply
Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:14 am

A question

Post by Humbled » Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:11 pm

I have enjoyed reading Rebecca Stott ‘s book on two occasions. I have been told by several friends that they have not read it because of unspecified inaccuracies. One friend was about to stop reading after 50 pages or so having concluded that it was an attack on Christian people. Having encouraged this person to read on he has now told me that it had helped him to understand why the treatment received by an uncle had led him to reject Christianity and for that reason he was pleased he had read the entire book.

I would like to be able to respond to the undermining inaccuracy statement. Does anyone know of any inaccuracies?

Peter W Harrison
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:46 am

Re: A question

Post by Peter W Harrison » Sat Sep 01, 2018 10:04 pm

I suggest that you should ask those friends to be specific as to these inaccuracies. It is our responsibility not to accept a false report. When Ngaire Thomas’ book was published the EB dismissed it as full of lies but then they would not front up with facts. We should firmly challenge such accusations.

The Erect Vessel
Posts: 555
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:19 am
Location: Not la la land

Re: A question

Post by The Erect Vessel » Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:46 am

I have read the book and a lot of the information I already knew as being factually correct from my perspective. There was information I did not know about, but that is not say it was incorrect, I just was not aware of these details. Very well written book with brutal honesty exposed in it as well. I liked its honesty to be perfectly upfront.

Ian McKay
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 8:04 am

Re: A question

Post by Ian McKay » Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:26 am

The only person I know who thinks there are inaccuracies in Rebecca’s book is an author called Massimo Introvigne, but the inaccuracies he has complained about either don’t exist or are trivial in the extreme, except to a pedant. The trivial inaccuracies make no difference to the main purposes of the book and they do not misrepresent the horrors and evils of the Taylor/Symington/Hales fellowship; neither do they amount to unfair accusations.

For instance, Rebecca mentions that she likes the Book of Job, particularly the part about the whale, perhaps an allusion to Job 7:12, and Massimo Introvigne complains that she really meant Jonah. Maybe she did or maybe she didn’t, but so what? Who cares?

Introvigne also objects strongly to the following sentences.
‘Break bread?’ Kez says. ‘What’s that?’ She’s secular. I’ve raised her that way.
‘Transubstantiation,’ I say. ‘Jesus died on the cross and left instructions that people were to remember his death, his sacrifice, by breaking bread and drinking wine. The bread was supposed to be his body and the wine his blood. We called it breaking bread.’
Introvigne calls this a “gross theological inaccuracy”. Really? The only inaccuracy, if there is one at all, is that the Brethren don’t use the term “transubstantiation” in their doctrine. This is only an argument about words.

Introvigne also complains about the account of Jim Taylor’s misbehaviour in 1970, saying it never really happened. Well, he is quite wrong about that. The Brethren’s propaganda machine must have got to him. Rebecca’s account of the 1970 scandal is as fair and accurate as is humanly possible.

Since the book won a Costa Award for the best biography of the year, it will be read very widely, so the Brethren may try to discredit it so as to protect their reputation. Maybe someday they will discover that the best way to protect their reputation is to bring their teachings, values and behaviour up to an acceptable standard.
Last edited by Ian McKay on Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

The Questioner
Posts: 960
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:23 am

Re: A question

Post by The Questioner » Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:31 am

Almost certainly - and indeed in my experience - any account, including Rebecca's, will have some variations (for example with dates) from another account.

The gospel writers are a good example of this. Most Christians would not stop reading the Bible because of this. Some fundamentalists would say that to point this out is an attack against Chritianity.

To stick at a certain page because of this indicates someone who is afraid of what they might discover and someone who has not developed their own ability to make informed judgments.

In other words, someone with an EB mindset.

Of course, as Peter says, to make claims of inaccuracy without evidence is meaningless and should be ignored.

Posts: 94
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 10:14 am

Re: A question

Post by Humbled » Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:13 pm

<t>Thank you friends for your comments.<br/>
My reason for asking was because I want to be ahead of the frame if indeed there are discrepancies. I have read the book twice and as a person who through grace was enabled to leave right after Aberdeen I didn’t see anything.inaccurate<br/>
It is interesting in a way how the book brings out predudices. For some folks the. line in the sand is that pre Big Jim this was a really special Godly community which went haywire after 1959 and use that as a reason for not wishing to read the book.<br/>
I encouraged a person to look beyond this and read on and he told me recently that as a result of reading this book he now understands the opinions of a relative who he said was very badly treated. This he told me will completely ch@nge his attitude to this relative./t>

Post Reply