Talk:The Family International/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about The Family International. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
POV Tag
In my opinion, the "plenty of discussion" generated over the NPOV of this article is being generated primarily from current members of The Family International (i.e. 216.70.243.114 (FCF), 68.55.238.141 (Claire Borowik; The Family International Spokesperson), 168.143.113.5, Audiofree, Cognomen/Cognomen2, Details, etc.). My vote is for against using this "POV Tag". Such a tag should be limited to extreme cases of POV. Thorwald 19:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- members of the Family have as much rights and duties as ex-members and never-members. Everyone who gives this article a POV warning should clearly explain why s/he does so and first try to change the article and negotiate with other contributors. I do not accept a POV warning without a clear explanation on the talk page which I have not seen until now. Andries 19:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is a bias here, many of the editors (Thorwald, Indian Joe, Gcom) are very active on others boards and wikis that are very negative to this group, they are not trying to be NPOV, they have an agenda, and it’s obvious. Yes the Pro COG editors do as well, but there is a balance, and until it’s worked out the POV should stay. I think this article should go bi-coastal as that may be the only way to get both sides a fair shake.Audiofree
- Bi-coastal? How does an article "go bi-coastal"? How will that help the article? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Audiofree, what is your specific problem with the article? Please answer that question or I will remove the POV warning. If you think that the Family is unfairly stigmatized, unfairly criticized, or persecuted (e.g. deprogramming of members) then try to say so in the article in a NPOV way. (it such a relief for me to comment on an article in which I am not emotionally involved) Andries 21:15, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Audiofree: Like Andries wrote, please point out exactly where you find the current material to be POV and we can discuss it here. I take exception to your stating that I am "negative" towards your group. I do not grant your group such control over my actions. My goal is simply that this article does not become a propaganda piece for your group. Give me a specific example of where I have been either negative or have contributed material that is POV. Thorwald 22:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thorwald and others, I think the article should explain more about the beliefs and practices from the perspective of the Family and not just highlight the unusual practices and beliefs without background explanation (though written by very knowledgeable editors). If necessary, we should make a spin off article e.g. Beliefs and practices of the Family because the article is now 47k (i.e. already >32k which is the optimal length for a Wikipedia article). Also, what is not made clear to the reader is the status and the authority of David Berg in the Family. Why were his unorthodox teachings accepted? He must have been a charismatic leader. I read that members saw him as a prophet but this is not explained in the article. Andries 09:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Andries: Yes, I would agree with you that at present the article needs to have more along the lines of what we believe and do. I will try and pen something soon on this. I understand your earlier sentiments of it being a relief to comment on an article in which one is not emotionally involved. It is distressing to see an organization that I am deeply involved with treated in this way. One tries to be courteous but it is difficult at times. As for the POV tag, I think until we can get some balance into the article then the POV tag should stay. I notice it is at present removed. I have to agree with Audiofree that some of the original editors and writers came to this with a negative agenda, something evident here but more so in their posts elsewhere.--Cognomen2 22:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen: Could you give some specific examples of what material in the article you find to be negative towards your group? Please note that just because some text is not 100% positive does not automatically make it 100% negative (I am sure everyone here understands this . . . just throwing it out there). We can, and should, make this article as informative as possible without being either negative or positive about your group ("Just the facts"). Finally, would you and Audiofree/Jon A. please list which editors you think have a "negative agenda". If you find me to be one of them, what exactly in my contributions do you find to be such? Thanks! Thorwald 22:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thorwald: Well, I wasn't specifically referring to you here or text you may included in the article. I think you and I have had a fairly civil give and take on all this. But I will give some specific example of material I find POV, and therefore negative and biased, in the article.
- How about the statement "Some claim that government-led investigations and court cases did not convict Family members nor communities, and that no evidence of abuse was found in the 750 plus children examined by state authorities." Why add the caveat "some claim"? Unless you are trying to make it sound like it wasn't true? Wouldn't you say it was bias and negative to word the statement this way? The investigations and raids did not result in any convictions and each one of the official court rulings clearly states no evidence of abuse was found. The way you have worded it (or your colleagues) clearly shows bias and POV and therefore is negative, implying that there was guilt involved, that was not uncovered and that a stated official court conclusion was wrong.
- Angela Smith is described as a former abuser of Ricky Rodriguez. This is unproven and Rodriguez made no reference whatsoever to her being an abuser on his video. Yet you state it as fact based, I believe, on one photo of both Rodriguez, when he was a toddler, and Smith fully clothed on a bed with an admittedly silly caption "Undressing for Sue." However, that photo would scarcely prove abuse. For all you and I know, she was undressing him to help him get into his pajamas and into bed. And don't you think it is POV to call Smith an abuser, something unproven, and not calling Rodriguez a murderer, something he was. Obviously those are both negatively charged words yet you use one and deliberately, it seems, don't use the other. Rodriguez was a strong man, skilled in martial arts. Smith was half his size. Who is the victim here?
- Another example: "Although the group has publicly renounced former policies and doctrines that condoned or encouraged sex between adults and minors, in their internal publications there has been no such renunciation." How about the following quote from Karen Zerby issued in the internal publication "Child Abuse a Final Warning" published in 1988, four years before the other document purported to have been authored by her that you have placed in the article even when I brought up objections to it at the time.
- "Besides, there's absolutely no reason why anyone in the Family would have to go any further than normal, legal affection with a minor! You can show your children that you love them by doing what parents have legitimately done for hundreds & thousands of years; hugging them & kissing them & putting your arm around them.--You certainly don't have to have any kind of sex with them! To have any kind of an affair or sexual relationship with a minor is just about the most dangerous thing any of our adults could do!--And it's not even necessary! There's no need or legitimate reason for it! … We've already put out an urgent notice to the Family & to the whole World that we don't do such things, & we mean it, we don't do it!--And anybody who does is in serious trouble, not only with the World but with us!! … So if we hear of anybody who violates these rules, we're going to immediately excommunicate them! Any such involvement with minors is definitely against our rules.
- “Furthermore, it's been researched & proven by the experts that in almost every case where an adult got involved with a teen, the relationship failed simply because there are too many differences of interests. Young people have better experiences with other young people. … So let me warn you again, if we or our leadership hear of any cases of this, & the cases are authenticated, it's going to result in automatic immediate excommunication of any such offenders."
- And as for the renunciation of any publications, I can only quote from David Berg when he wrote: "We do not approve of sex with minors, and hereby renounce any writings of anyone in our Family which may seem to do so! We absolutely forbid it!"—found in "CHILD ABUSE?!--An Official Statement." 12/88
- Would you say that it was bias and definitely POV to include extracts from the one supposed document and not the others which I assume you have available to you, seeing it seems you have a great many Family publications available. I am making a bit of a presumption and that is I believe you were probably raised in the Family or spent sometime in it. If so, I think you would be well aware of our policies against abuse.
- Or how about this statement: "Zerby encourages followers, including children, to engage in a spiritual sexual relationship with Jesus." I can't imagine you were being NPOV when you added "including children" when it is clearly stated in the Family's publications on the subject that it was/is not for children. A version of revelation was published for 14 and 15 year olds, explaining it, but certainly children, if understood in the context of what most people would regard as children, were not encouraged to engage in this revelation. Isn't it POV to deliberately mislead?
- And finally the statement "The Family International calls those who publicly express negative opinions about the group's practices and those who claim to have been sexually or physically abused during their childhood in the group, bitter apostates." If someone leaves and expresses negative opinions we don't call them apostates. If someone claims to have been abused we don't call them apostates. If, however, someone actively starts fighting us and trying to cause trouble to our missionary work then they have labeled themselves apostates because that is how the dictionary defines apostates and what social scientists who have studied this phenomenon call them. Hardly NPOV to not put this in to context.
- And then there is the matter of overall tone. I suppose you may want to say a good word every now and then, but I think the only one I could really see, and it was a back handed compliment, was that there was a lack of graft. But I suppose the article has gotten marginally better since I first looked at it last year.
- Well, I just wanted to answer your question here. But I suppose you won't have any problem if I start adding stuff about the good works the FI does around the world or perhaps a fuller explanation about our beliefs would you? Sorry this has taken so long.--Cognomen2 03:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen: Thanks for taking the time to write all of the above and present your views. I, too, believe you and I have remained civil in our exchanges and hope we can continue on such a tone. I think you have raised some valid points and would have no problem with you including some material explaining work your group does to help others. I will continue to maintain that this is no place for a propaganda piece either for or against your group (they can visit your website for that). Although I understand what you were trying to convey with the above, I am also sure you know that I am not the only contributor and that I do not have any "colleagues" on this site. I am absolutely satisfied that your group no longer condones the sexual abuse of minors (those under 18 years of age). However, I believe there is sufficient evidence that such abuses took place in the past. All one needs to do to prove that this occurred and was condoned at the highest levels of your leadership is point to the "Davidito Book". Since this article is about your group's history, such practices should remain in this article and are not meant to be negative (and certainly not POV). I have access to and have read the version of "Loving Jesus" for 14-year olds. It certainly seems to suggest that it is "God's will" that they engage in this activity. In my opinion, 14-year olds are children. Berg's writings (in the past, at least) seem to show fascination with sex, including with minors. Just because your group no longer condones or contains these publications within circulation (see "BAR Pubs") does not mean they did not happen and they should, therefore, be included in this article. Also, what is a reader supposed to conclude when a picture shows Angela "Sue" Smith and Ricky Rodriguez together with a caption that reads "Undressing for Sue" and a few pages later shows Ricky Rodriguez (as a child) playing with Sara "Davidito" Kelley's breasts and lying in bed with both of them naked? The whole tone of that chapter was to chronicle Ricky's sexual exploits as a child. These are facts that can be easily seen on numerous websites. What is the public supposed to believe? I do, however, believe such facts should be presented in as NPOV a way as possible within this article. Let's keep the dialogue open. We can make this article a decent and true representation of your group's present and past. Thorwald 05:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thorwald: Nice to have a good understanding between ourselves here. In light of our comments I have started making some changes in the article. Please be sure to read my comments in the talk page for the explanation as to them. --Cognomen2 19:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen: Thanks for taking the time to write all of the above and present your views. I, too, believe you and I have remained civil in our exchanges and hope we can continue on such a tone. I think you have raised some valid points and would have no problem with you including some material explaining work your group does to help others. I will continue to maintain that this is no place for a propaganda piece either for or against your group (they can visit your website for that). Although I understand what you were trying to convey with the above, I am also sure you know that I am not the only contributor and that I do not have any "colleagues" on this site. I am absolutely satisfied that your group no longer condones the sexual abuse of minors (those under 18 years of age). However, I believe there is sufficient evidence that such abuses took place in the past. All one needs to do to prove that this occurred and was condoned at the highest levels of your leadership is point to the "Davidito Book". Since this article is about your group's history, such practices should remain in this article and are not meant to be negative (and certainly not POV). I have access to and have read the version of "Loving Jesus" for 14-year olds. It certainly seems to suggest that it is "God's will" that they engage in this activity. In my opinion, 14-year olds are children. Berg's writings (in the past, at least) seem to show fascination with sex, including with minors. Just because your group no longer condones or contains these publications within circulation (see "BAR Pubs") does not mean they did not happen and they should, therefore, be included in this article. Also, what is a reader supposed to conclude when a picture shows Angela "Sue" Smith and Ricky Rodriguez together with a caption that reads "Undressing for Sue" and a few pages later shows Ricky Rodriguez (as a child) playing with Sara "Davidito" Kelley's breasts and lying in bed with both of them naked? The whole tone of that chapter was to chronicle Ricky's sexual exploits as a child. These are facts that can be easily seen on numerous websites. What is the public supposed to believe? I do, however, believe such facts should be presented in as NPOV a way as possible within this article. Let's keep the dialogue open. We can make this article a decent and true representation of your group's present and past. Thorwald 05:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen: Could you give some specific examples of what material in the article you find to be negative towards your group? Please note that just because some text is not 100% positive does not automatically make it 100% negative (I am sure everyone here understands this . . . just throwing it out there). We can, and should, make this article as informative as possible without being either negative or positive about your group ("Just the facts"). Finally, would you and Audiofree/Jon A. please list which editors you think have a "negative agenda". If you find me to be one of them, what exactly in my contributions do you find to be such? Thanks! Thorwald 22:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Andries: Yes, I would agree with you that at present the article needs to have more along the lines of what we believe and do. I will try and pen something soon on this. I understand your earlier sentiments of it being a relief to comment on an article in which one is not emotionally involved. It is distressing to see an organization that I am deeply involved with treated in this way. One tries to be courteous but it is difficult at times. As for the POV tag, I think until we can get some balance into the article then the POV tag should stay. I notice it is at present removed. I have to agree with Audiofree that some of the original editors and writers came to this with a negative agenda, something evident here but more so in their posts elsewhere.--Cognomen2 22:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thorwald and others, I think the article should explain more about the beliefs and practices from the perspective of the Family and not just highlight the unusual practices and beliefs without background explanation (though written by very knowledgeable editors). If necessary, we should make a spin off article e.g. Beliefs and practices of the Family because the article is now 47k (i.e. already >32k which is the optimal length for a Wikipedia article). Also, what is not made clear to the reader is the status and the authority of David Berg in the Family. Why were his unorthodox teachings accepted? He must have been a charismatic leader. I read that members saw him as a prophet but this is not explained in the article. Andries 09:32, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
- Unfortunately there is a bias here, many of the editors (Thorwald, Indian Joe, Gcom) are very active on others boards and wikis that are very negative to this group, they are not trying to be NPOV, they have an agenda, and it’s obvious. Yes the Pro COG editors do as well, but there is a balance, and until it’s worked out the POV should stay. I think this article should go bi-coastal as that may be the only way to get both sides a fair shake.Audiofree
- I took out a POV statement about David Berg as an "authoritarian leader" in the section on Flirty Fishing. --Details 22:43, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Details, then what was he a? A prophet? How did his followers see him? I already wrote here that this should be explained. I will write that he declared himself a prophet in 1972, according to the University of Virginia Website. Andries 07:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
- Andries: The point is that this was a section about Flirty Fishing, and not about David Berg's leadership. If that's being described, then leader, pastor, founder are all terms that describe his relationship to the movement. As far as his calling, then prophet would be correct. --Details 15:36, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Details and everybody, thanks for your explanation. I request that other contributors explain their deletions too because contributorse seem to have polarized widely divergent opinions about the subject and I think this article will likely result in harmful edit wars unless we are very careful. (I was unfortunately involved in several edit wars regarding new religious movements and related subjects. It is a sensitive subject both in- and outside Wikipedia). Andries 16:19, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea of having the beliefs of the organisation right in the beginning, so the reader can have an understanding of what they stand for before going into all the details of less important subjects. I think its good that this isn't too long and tedious but rather a short, readable, summary of the beliefs. Mandolin
COG 1968 to 1978
- I agree with Manicmoe that long quotes are bad style. Can the quotes of judge Ward shortened please? Andries 07:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, I am a bit stumped as to why the quotes from Justice Ward are included. Seems the whole issue he was grapling with of whether the Family is/was the CoG is moot because even in the Family's official statement on their origins is entitled "The Origins of a Movement: From 'The Children of God' to 'The Family International.'" So I believe the whole first block quote from his judgment could be dropped. I will plan on doing that if I have a general agreement on this.--Cognomen2 03:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Cognomen on this. The Family has been publically open about it's various name changes. The issue seems unnecessary to the article. I agree to deleting the quote from Judge Ward.--Mindsports 23:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I deleted it.--Cognomen2 03:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Recent Teachings
- The list of external links in this section is interesting, but I feel it's very cumbersome and looks overdone to be face front in the article like it is. I'd suggest there simply be a link to a directory or place where the reader can look it up if they want to. If there are no objections to this I'll make the change. Let me know.--Mindsports 17:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree and don't think the links to the Family's "Loving Jesus" publications should be removed. It is important for the reader to be able to see the actual publications that are being discussed and to note that there are different versions for different age groups including children as young as 12 years old. Manicmoe 13:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think the whole list in the middle of the article is that helpful. I think if there was one external page linked with one hot link where they were all found it would be fine. Really clutters up the article otherwise. It is only one issue and if we used this as a precedent the whole article would be a sea of hotlinks.--Cognomen2 21:26, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I have replaced the 18 external links with one link that has all the information including the complete Loving Jesus series (and the different versions for for different age groups) and the Family's "doctrinal paper" on the "Loving Jesus" revelation. Manicmoe 02:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have looked over the page that the external link goes to and find that it is very biased in its presentation and far from NPOV. Although I realise external sites don't have to be NPOV, because xFamily.org mimics Wikipedia I believe that xFamily.org should at least present a fair representation of the issue. This is not currently the case, so I think that until it does that the link should be removed. What do you all think? --Cognomen2 15:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Manicmoe for consolidating the previous "Loving Jesue" list into one link. Looks much better. I also just looked at the page that the link points to and I tend to agree with Cognomen that the page is pointedly POV in its presentation, and may be a little confusing to the uninitiated reader because of how the page looks so similar to wikipedia pages. On the other hand to link to an overtly Family site with the same materials could arguably also be POV. So what to do? I'm not familiar with wikipedia's standard or policy with links like this. But what if some Family person came in now and deleted the link for their own, or even just added another link to their own page of "Loving Jesus" publications? Makes the article cumbersome at best. But is this stuff decided on a first dog to the bone basis? I'm not really offering any answers here, because I don't know. Any ideas?--Mindsports 01:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Mindsports and Cognomen2 Almost all the information on the xfamily.org Loving Jesus page consists of direct quotes from Family publications on the Loving Jesus doctrine and there are links to the complete text of these publications and the Family's "doctrinal paper" on the "Loving Jesus" revelation. The majority of the space is devoted to presenting the Family's point of view taken from their internal publications and in their own words. I guess you feel that the Family's Loving Jesus publications don't do a good job of explaining the Family's position to the extent that simply presenting them to the reader factually and in their entirety is evidence of a biased POV. I actually feel that because the xfamily.org Loving Jesus page doesn't devote any space to the reaction of mainstream Christian denominations and theologians who consider the Loving Jesus doctrine to be heretical blasphemy, it is somewhat biased in favor of the Family's POV. If there were an official Family International site accessible to the general public with the complete text of all their Loving Jesus publications in their entirety then I would have no problem linking to that instead. But I am not aware of any such site. Please let me when it is available. Manicmoe 06:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Manicmoe for consolidating the previous "Loving Jesue" list into one link. Looks much better. I also just looked at the page that the link points to and I tend to agree with Cognomen that the page is pointedly POV in its presentation, and may be a little confusing to the uninitiated reader because of how the page looks so similar to wikipedia pages. On the other hand to link to an overtly Family site with the same materials could arguably also be POV. So what to do? I'm not familiar with wikipedia's standard or policy with links like this. But what if some Family person came in now and deleted the link for their own, or even just added another link to their own page of "Loving Jesus" publications? Makes the article cumbersome at best. But is this stuff decided on a first dog to the bone basis? I'm not really offering any answers here, because I don't know. Any ideas?--Mindsports 01:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have looked over the page that the external link goes to and find that it is very biased in its presentation and far from NPOV. Although I realise external sites don't have to be NPOV, because xFamily.org mimics Wikipedia I believe that xFamily.org should at least present a fair representation of the issue. This is not currently the case, so I think that until it does that the link should be removed. What do you all think? --Cognomen2 15:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I have replaced the 18 external links with one link that has all the information including the complete Loving Jesus series (and the different versions for for different age groups) and the Family's "doctrinal paper" on the "Loving Jesus" revelation. Manicmoe 02:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The policy can be found here Wikipedia:external links. POV external links are ok. However Wikipedia is not a website directory, so the number should be kept small. A representative set of sites (pro & con) that offer significant information is ideal. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:32, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks Willmcw. Very clear.--Mindsports 18:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I noticed that the exfamily website says that FreeCOG was founded in 1971, not in 1972. This article says 1972. Who is right? (I am willing to accept that some people editing this article are more knowledgable than NRM scholars but I would like to have references for the year). Thanks Andries 17:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- It was already being referred to in internal CoG publications in Feb. 1972 so I believe 1971 is the correct date. I saw something online refering to a meeting held of FreeCOG chaired by Ted Patrick in August 1971--Cognomen2 18:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have made extensive additions (and some subtractions) to this section. Please have a look and see what you think. --Cognomen2 18:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I reverted some of Manicmoe's changes to the Loving Jesus section back. Obviously, some of them weren't correct such as male and females seeing themselves as women in spirit during sexual activity. During sexual activity they are male and female. Also, the LJ explanation for 12-13 year olds was definitely non-sexual so I don't see why the change to "less direct" was made. --Cognomen2 28 June 2005 21:16 (UTC)
- Cognomen2 I disagree with the current wording. To say the Loving Jesus practice "can include elements of sexuality" implies that perhaps it does not when it fact it certainly does. The practice needs to be clearly and accurately described, defined and summarized without resorting to euphemisms and language that misleads the reader. The Family needs to be clearly cited as the source for the argument that the Loving Jesus doctrine "echoes the teachings of some of the Christian mystics and the eroticism of the Song of Solomon." It is now in the footnote I added but you removed the part that cites it in the sentence itself which makes it clear to the reader. I think the best way to do this is with a direct quote rather than a paraphrase.
The version for 12-13 year olds is not "definitely non-sexual." It is indeed accurate to say it is "less direct." It might be better to clarify it even further and also note how the versions for different age groups differ. It does state that the most of the sexual Loving Jesus practices are only for older children and adults. The language is much less explicit and a lot of the content in the other versions has been removed. However, it explains the practices and has terms such as lovemaking, sex, sexual, sexy, etc: t 7:
- 30. All of this sounds quite intimate, doesn't it? It sounds like the Lord actually means it when He says we are His Bride. As I said in the first GN on Loving Jesus (GN 659), a bride and a bridegroom are very loving with each other, very intimate, and very sexy. They crave being with each other. They love to have time together, to kiss, to caress, to make love. The Lord used this illustration because it is one that we can very easily understand.
- 61. Practicing the sexual aspects of the Loving Jesus revelation is only for the older Family members, but I shared the excerpts of the above prophecy with you JETTs so you could understand the basic spiritual principle behind the use of such love words. Also, even though saying sexy love words is a private matter, there's a chance that sometime you may inadvertently overhear some older Family members saying such love words to Jesus during their private fellowship time with Him. Therefore it is important that you understand why they would say such things and why the Lord has allowed them to approach Him in this way.
- 62. For the adults there are other sexual aspects to this revelation, besides the saying of sexy love words to Jesus. The Lord explained through various prophecies how we older Family members can feel His Love more through our sexual experiences, and we, who are of age, can be His Love for one another in our sexual sharing. However, since this does not relate to you JETTs, and since there is not much chance that you will be observing this practice at all, even inadvertently, it is not necessary for you to be aware of the details of this part of the revelation. You can learn about these details when you are older. You can read about some of the sexual aspects when you become a junior teen, and you can read the full revelation when you become a senior teen.
- 187. (Mama Maria:) Isn't this beautiful? The Lord says that His Love for us is so deep and that He is rewarding us with His lovemaking because we lay down our lives day by day in service, obedience and yieldedness. What a precious reward right here on Earth, a special touch and empowerment of His Love.
- I did not write the part of the sentence you changed or removed which was "Hence both female and male members of the group can visualize themselves as women "in the spirit"" I did add to it. I should have replaced the "male and female" part with "male". Obviously, females would not need to see themselves as a woman having sex with Jesus since they already are. However, I do not find anything in the Loving Jesus publications stating that "during sexual activity they are both male and female." In fact, quite the opposite. For example, consider these questions and answers from Loving Jesus Part 7:
- Men Loving Jesus Intimately
- 38. Question 11: How can men have this intimate, sexy relationship with Jesus and it not be a male-with-male homosexual relationship?
- 39. Answer: Because you men become female in Spirit during your times of intimate lovemaking with Jesus. In your lovemaking with Jesus you are not a man. You are making love to Him as His Bride, His spiritual wife. This has nothing to do with a male-to-male relationship. This is not a homosexual relationship. It is a spiritual female, you, making love to a male, Jesus. He is the Man, the Bridegroom, and you are the woman, His Bride, His wife.
(See Part 3, paragraphs 87-95, 109-122.)
- 45. Question 14: As a man, when I say love words to Jesus, do I have to be able to visualize Him making love to me? Do I have to see it?
- 46. Answer: No, you men do not have to see or visualize Jesus making love to you. Many men are naturally inclined to visualize sexy pictures when they think sexy thoughts or say sexy things. A fairly common problem some of the men had when they first read this series was that they weren't visualizing themselves as women, so when they saw pictures of Jesus, a man, it was very difficult for them. This type of mental picture was a problem for some men, because they said it was a huge distraction for them during their intimate prayer time.
- 47. Different men coped with their tendency to see these mental pictures differently. Some decided to say the love words to Jesus out of obedience, to please Him, but they choose words that are less graphic, so as to avoid the words bringing up sexual pictures in their minds that turn them off.
- 48. I understand that other men, when they say love words to Jesus or masturbate with Him or have sex with a woman while loving Jesus, visualize a scene of Jesus making love to a woman. In such a case, the woman that is making love to Jesus, that the man visualizes in his fantasy, represents himself. In other words, the man sees himself as the woman making love to Jesus, but he sort of mentally observes the act from afar, as a third party bystander, instead of being the one who actually partakes firsthand of Jesus' touches, kisses, lovemaking, etc. This way some men have pleasant sexual experiences when loving Jesus.
- 49. Also, there are men who were able to become accustomed to seeing themselves as women in the Spirit. They've learned how to effectively visualize themselves as a woman. They can now see themselves as having a female spirit body, and as such can have very intimate, detailed, erotic, sexual experiences when loving Jesus either privately or with a partner.
- 50. So as you can see, we have come across a variety of reactions from the men, and they have come up with different ways to cope with the sexy pictures that naturally come to their minds when saying graphic love words to Jesus. Do whatever works for you.
(See Part 4, paragraphs 62-63.)
Second Generation
I suppose my additions and changes might cause some controversy but this section was rather one-sided as it previously stood. It seemed to be more of a section on Second Generation exmembers rather than a treatment of the second generation in toto. --Cognomen2 23:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This section seems to have a better balance now, showing the different categories of "second generation." I agree with these edits.------Details2 30 June 2005 16:12 (UTC)(UTC)
Citing Sources, NPOV and Plagiarism
Mandolin recently replaced a section on Flirty Fishing with a direct copy and paste of the "Flirty Fishing" section from thefamily.org: The Origins of a Movement: From "The Children of God" to "The Family International" without any attribution. I have reverted his edit as I don't believe such blantant plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty is apropriate or ethical. He could have quoted or paraphrased material from that page and cited his source. Instead he copied the material almost word for word without citing its source and claimed that he "rewrote this section as it did not clearly explain the goal of FFing." Except for a few minor deletions from the original, the text he added is identical to the text in the "Flirty Fishing" section of the Family International's statement cited above. It's actually quite possible to objectively present the Family's point of view on this issue without resorting to plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty. Perhaps Mandolin disagrees, but it's really not that difficult to cite sources and not present someone else's work as your own NPOV contribution when it clearly is not. Manicmoe 13:50, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Manicmoe I see your reasons in reverting to your original write up and will redo. You're right the goals of FFing can be presented objectively. The original write up did not give enough material to give the reader an understanding of it; too sketchy and scattered. '
SeventyThree: Kudos for helpful, non-vitriolic, professional editing. Welcome.--Kibbitzer 20:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Ward Judgment, and reverts
I removed the link to xFamily.org's page on this because I noticed that what purports to be the full judgment is in fact a selectively edited document.--Cognomen2 28 June 2005 22:12 (UTC)
- Interesting. So what xfamily.org posted is not really the full judgement--it's edited--even tho the page's title clearly states that it is? If that's true, doesn't that bring into serious doubt the veracity of all of xfamily.org's links referencing other materials as well?--Mindsports 29 June 2005 04:09 (UTC)
- I reverted Manicmoe's last edits for the following reason. The link to the Ward Judgment, yes even the new link, is to an edited version of the judgment, minus relevant parts that have to do with people who are associated with xFamily.org. Until those parts are replaced then it is not a valid link.
The excommunication rule referred to was put in place in 1989 and cannot be made retroactive. So the question Manicmoe raises are moot. Besides, Wikipedia is not a place to level accusations at people especially hiding behind a pseudonym.
As for the stats section which was arbitrarily deleted, the supposed inaccuracies could just be brought to Mindsport's attention to be fixed. Let's be a bit more civil here rather than just deleting other people's edits.--Cognomen2 29 June 2005 03:51 (UTC)- Cognomen2 and Mindsports: Please substantiate these feckless accusations. The editors at xfamily.org (myself counted amongst them) have most certainly NOT removed information about anyone or "selectively edited" the document in any way, aside from to add its original formatting (bolding, indenting, etc). If portions of the judgment were not available to us (for example, if the courts did not make them available to the public), please notify us of any sections in question and we will either add them to the page (if at all possible) or make note of their unavailability. Your resorting to what appears to be intentional deception in this matter is highly unethical and demonstrative of your willingness to defend The Family with propaganda & lies. Or is it being a "Deceiver Yet True"? --Monger 30 June 2005 02:48 (UTC)
- I reverted Manicmoe's last edits for the following reason. The link to the Ward Judgment, yes even the new link, is to an edited version of the judgment, minus relevant parts that have to do with people who are associated with xFamily.org. Until those parts are replaced then it is not a valid link.
- The fact that the Family has not excommunicated people who have abused children is highly relevant. I wasn't aware that the 1988 policy (The Family has publicly stated on numerous occasions that adult-child sexual contact was made an excommunicable offense in 1988. It is interesting that you now say these statements the Family has made are false and that the policy was not put into place until 1989) was and is not retroactive and does not apply to acts of child abuse committed before 1989 or 1988. This is very disturbing to find out and is not something the Family's official spokespersons have ever made clear in their public statements about the matter. Just because it is not retroactive does not mean that it can't be or that it shouldn't be. The Catholic Church, for example, has created policies that state there is no place in the ministry for those who have ever abused children at any time and even if it only happened once. Their official policy is that priests who are found to have ever abused children even once are removed from their position. The Church now provides information about abusive priests to law enforcement agencies, cooperates in investigations and provides financial restitution to victims. Of course to get to this point has taken many lawsuits and even now some charge that the policies are selectively enforced and that the Church is not doing everything it can to provide justice to those abused by priests. In contrast, according to the information you have provided, the Family has only instituted a non-retroactive policy of excommunication and has publically made false statements about when the policy was put in place. The answers to the question of why the Family does not excommunicate and report to law enforcement agencies and to the public every single one of its members who has ever sexually or physically abused a child are highly relevant. This gigantic loophole of a non-retroactive policy which allows those who have abused children to remain in contact with children and, in some cases, hold positions of leadership and responsibility over the welfare of children is very relevant and should be noted in this Wikipedia article about the Family.
In regards to your other statement, I have not levelled any accusations against anyone, I have objectively reported the publically known facts and unrefutable evidence. Do you deny that the Family published the Davidito book? Do you believe that an adult woman having sexual contact with a very young boy and documenting this activity with published photographs and writings is not legally prohibited conduct and child abuse? If the Family really banned adult-child sexual contact in 1986 as it claims, how is it that Samuel Charles Perfilio (aka Kevin Anthony Brown) was allowed to impregnate a 14-year-old girl who delivered his baby in 1987 at age 15? There were many other examples I could have chosen but these are very obvious and undeniable. If the excommunication policy is indeed not retroactive, than that explains why they (and so many others who sexually abused children before 1988 and 1989) were not excommunicated and I will note that after I revert back to my edits.
In regards to your claim that the complete judgement on xfamily.org is not actually complete, please explain exactly what you mean and exactly where the sections you claim were removed can found. The original link was to a page that contained excerpts of the Judgement as well as a link to the complete 650kb Judgement. There are other sites [1] that have the complete judgement as well, are you now claiming that all of these have an incomplete version or are you limiting your claim to the one on xfamily.org? You need to back up this claim with specific evidence rather than vague assertions.
In regards to the inaccurate statistics, I did bring these to Mindsports's attention by removing them until such time as he (or someone else) can correct them with accurate information that specifically cites the source. I have never seen the Family claim that it had 27000 Homes and 35000 members in 1983. Some have claimed that the Family has a history of inflating its numbers but I have never seen any evidence that they have inflated them so greatly. Perhaps some will disgaree but I think the facts are important and no numbers are better than wildly inaccurate ones. If you read Bill Bainbridge's book (Sociology of New Religious Movements) you will find that the membership numbers the Family provided to him for 1968-1995 are quite different than what Mindsports reported. They also differ from the numbers in the Family's official internal publications. I see Mindsports has now removed those inaccurate numbers. I would still like him to specifically cite his sources. Just saying that the Family is the source is not enough. Manicmoe 29 June 2005 05:37 (UTC)
- Manicmoe and Monger: The excommunication policy was put in writing in December 1988, so indeed that is the right date and not 1989 as I wrote earlier. But at this point in time I don't think it makes a lot of difference if the policy was enacted either 16 years ago or 17 years ago. Thorwald, one of your associates on xFamily.org, also acknowledged to me on this talk page that he is well aware that child abuse does not go on in the Family International today. As for cases that are pre December 1988, I think there is little that can be done. You and your associates on xFamily.org and other places have made quite a show of reporting to law enforcement about Sara and the Davidito book so I am not sure what can remain to be done on that score. Issues of jurisdiction and statutes of limitations also limit what can be done. As for the other instance you talk about, from what I understand that happened in the Philippines where the legal age of consent was 14 at the time. So no law was broken and I understand that the individuals involved continue today on amicable terms. If he had done the same thing a year later he would have been excommunicated. So it seems that if the young person involved isn't making a fuss about it neither should any of the rest of us. I also think that such a belaboring of this point does not belong in an encyclopedia.
- On the other issue, the purportedly full judgment of Justice Ward on xFamily.org is indeed an edited version. The whole last part entitled The End Result is missing. In there were at least two references to Philip Sherwood whose material is posted on your site and it seems from a note on the geocities site more is being transfered. Are the editors of that site shielding him from attention for some reason because you host his material. It is also inexplicable that you cooperate with him since you are making such an issue about shielding abusers. Mr. Sherwood virtually admitted being a child abuser on the CNN 360 show, a copy of which is also found on your site, by equivocating when Anderson Cooper asked him outright. If you insist on putting these two examples in as evidence I would think you would also be obligated to put in about Philip Sherwood.
- As for the judgment, I can only assume that if the document on your site does not have the favorable conclusion to both the mother in the case and also to the Family, that there are some ulterior motives behind that. I do not have time to check the document word for word but if that part has been left out I can only assume the worst about the rest of it. I am not saying that you doctored it but someone did. And yes, that part is also missing on exFamily.org as well.
- So I am once again removing the link until a genuine full copy of the Judgment is posted or it is noted that the Judgment on your site is selectively incomplete. I am also reverting back to the previous edit which framed the issue from both sides in a few words as Willmcw and others advised. As for Monger with his "feckless" attack, I hope he has the gumption to profer an apology. --Cognomen2 30 June 2005 03:25 (UTC)
- Cognomen2: What exactly do you want me to apologize for? Accusing you of deception? If so, not a chance. Your suggestion that xFamily removed information from Ward's judgment because the site hosts Sherwood's letters (along with numerous other documents of historical importance in relevance to the Family) is nonsense. Further, saying that he "virtually admitted being a child abuser on CNN" is again lacking honesty. His words were that Cooper's question about whether he'd abused children while a member of the Family was "pretty invasive". Further, no child or adult has levelled any allegations of that manner against him that I'm aware of.
- At any rate, this whole issue is a red herring and has no relevance towards whether his letters would be hosted or not -- e.g. Family publications by people who were found to have commited abuse in a court of law are also archived on xFamily.
- Earlier I noted that the xFamily site did not modify available records of the judgment & was willing to update it or note its incompleteness if evidence to that effect is provided. That's very much the case. Your comment may be helpful towards tracking down such evidence, and if you're able to provide the allegedly missing segment you describe I encourage you to do so. --Monger 1 July 2005 01:41 (UTC)
- Cognomen2: Somewhat related--May I suggest COG/Family sites be used as the primary sources of COG/Family writings in this article? I am surprised that the "official" Charter link points to a hostile site. Imagine: "See U.S. Constitution, www.cuba.gov/usconstitution." :-) If an adversarial site is admittedly hosting an edited "complete version" of an important legal judgment, should it be considered a trustworthy source for a COG charter? Is it also a suspect version of the Family's Charter (and what about other writings hosted there as well)? And who has time to throughly check? ("Information/Disinformation" overload?) The Charter document MAY be an exact duplicate, or out of date, or worse. Isn't the best (or at least the first) source for a group's constitution, writings, and explanation of practices ... the group itself--certainly for the latest editions, amendments, and the overall context of the COG writings.
- Comment on the overall article: Of course, criticism has a place in this article (3. Criticism), but I am amazed at how many places in the article are permeated with charges and accusations and innuendos. It reads more like a rap sheet (and who cares about some regional officer's name and alias) than an article on a religious group. Why not put the basic points of criticism in the criticism section. If critics want to expand, then open other appropriate articles.
- Looking at the article on the Roman Catholic Church, the topic is a simple presentation of the church--its history, doctrines, ideals, organization, etc. Information. (Sans a tedious listing of bishops and archbishops and their aliases.) There is a "criticism" subheading where the main issues are simply (and briefly) presented. Then OTHER articles cover the controversy and court cases and problems. What about doing that for this article? Even the Scientology article is clear, with a presentation of who they are and what they are about. Criticism and contrary viewpoints are presented more fully in other articles.
- Request: Can Wikipedia just have an article on the COG--who they are and what they are about? Few have time to wade through this mess as is. (E.g., it's poor editing indeed that the 1982-1994 section has about four paragraphs of material relating to post 1994, and as late as 2005.) In its present form, IMHO, this article is not worthy of Wikipedia.--Kibbitzer 1 July 2005 08:57 (UTC)
- Kibbitzer: I think a few of your suggestions may have merit, but, to borrow a line, it's far easier to point the finger in ridicule and criticism than it is to help with the solution.
- As for some of your accusatory claims, first of all, it should be made clear that no one has presented any evidence that Lord Justice Ward's judgment is missing a section at this time. Nevertheless, a request has been opened for an official copy from Her Majesty's Courts Service, as unfortunatly the public Internet archive from the House of Lords only contains Judgments going back to 14-Nov-1996 [2].
- Second, xFamily's copy of the Family International's "Love Charter" in PDF format is taken directly from the group's members-only website at www.familymembers.com, and any member of the Family can easily verify this fact. Futher, it is my understanding that the sect will provide the document in its entirety to outsiders upon specific request. As such, I request that you abstain from this smear campaign and substantiate your claims.
- In regards to your description of xFamily as a "hostile site," well, regardless of whether it always presents information in a manner you're comfortable with, the site is & always has been intended for factual collaboration between diverse individuals, regardless of their personal opinions of or relation to the group, be they current, former or never members. Personally, I've tried to solicit fact-checking and information contribution from numerous members of the Family, but I must confess that I've been somewhat frustrated by how some refuse to visit the site solely because of directives from their leaders instructing members they're not spiritually strong enough to withstand "lies of detractors and Satan" with their faith intact. --Monger 1 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)
- Thanks Cognomen for bringing the stats inaccuracies to my attention. When looking it over I realized that I'd mixed the Family's MWM "radio members" into the total without tagging them correctly. My bad. Fixed now.--Mindsports 29 June 2005 05:18 (UTC)
- All, the current size (65k) of the article is now twice the recomended size (32k). I believe that Cognomen is right when s/he wrote that the article is too unwieldy. I suggest splitting up the article in History of Children of God and Organization of the Family and provide a summary of these subarticles in this main article. Andries 2 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)
- Monger: One has to notice a problem in order to offer a solution. Andries agrees the article is unwieldy, although his proposed solution differs from mine. But I don't take his different proposal personally and then call him names. I'm neither demanding that others agree nor berating those who disagree. And really, if the "xFamily" site is not "hostile" to the COG/Family, then perhaps the name should be changed--and the content too. It's not real inviting to feature on your site's home page a video of someone cussing and discussing how he is going to brutally execute a woman guest in his home later that evening. I admit, I'm not "comfortable" with that. And you have the audacity to say you're "frustrated by how some refuse to visit the site"? LOL. And you rate my observations of this as being "accusatory" and a "smear campaign"? Look, thanks for editing out some of your other initial comments, but to come across more reasonable and balanced, those should have gone to. The point is ... that we all have "Wikipedian" dialogue to help improve entries, whether it be this article on the COG or the Inuit. Shalom.--Kibbitzer 3 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
- Kibbitzer: I agree that the article is unwieldy, and I've already noted that I think some of your ideas may be helpful. I have not called you names, either. As for Ricky Rodriguez's video, I'm sure you realize it's also linked to in this Wikpedia article, and it is of primary interest to thousands who seek information about The Family, given his incredibly significant status within the group (that of son of the prophetess, heir to the throne, future Endtime prophet, and finally that of avenger). When I spoke of Family members refusing to visit certain websites, it is not specifically because of "hostile" content, but rather due to such sites having the audacity to portray the group & its leaders in a less than squeaky-clean light. The few Family members who contribute towards editing this article on Wikipedia are disregarding their leaders' directives in order to defend the group, and as long as truth is an additional objective I find that to be a good thing. Further, what I described as a smear campaign was not a reference to critisizm of myself or whatever projects I happen to contribute towards, but rather the way you suggested the "Love Charter" may have been doctored without any attempt whatsoever to substantiate this false claim. Hopefully we can continue on a more conciliatory tone from here, though I'll note that I've long avoided editing the CoG article due to the effort involved as well as what I at times perceive as disregard for truth and polarity between members & ex-members. This is why I value the contribution of more detached parties such as Indian Joe and Andries (and, if you are not a member of the group, yourself). Peace to you, too. --Monger 3 July 2005 15:21 (UTC)
- Monger: One has to notice a problem in order to offer a solution. Andries agrees the article is unwieldy, although his proposed solution differs from mine. But I don't take his different proposal personally and then call him names. I'm neither demanding that others agree nor berating those who disagree. And really, if the "xFamily" site is not "hostile" to the COG/Family, then perhaps the name should be changed--and the content too. It's not real inviting to feature on your site's home page a video of someone cussing and discussing how he is going to brutally execute a woman guest in his home later that evening. I admit, I'm not "comfortable" with that. And you have the audacity to say you're "frustrated by how some refuse to visit the site"? LOL. And you rate my observations of this as being "accusatory" and a "smear campaign"? Look, thanks for editing out some of your other initial comments, but to come across more reasonable and balanced, those should have gone to. The point is ... that we all have "Wikipedian" dialogue to help improve entries, whether it be this article on the COG or the Inuit. Shalom.--Kibbitzer 3 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
Missing in the article: apocalyptic prophecies
I miss in the article the somewhat apocalyptic prophecies made about the 1990s by David Berg that must have given members of the CoG a sense of urgency. Prophecies are described among others in Stephen A. Kent's book From slogans to mantra Andries 30 June 2005 10:12 (UTC)
- Yes, I would like to see this as well. Aside from things like the Kohutek and "40 days" prophecies, I remember when it was first revealved that Jesus had changed his mind about returning in 1993 in order to allow The Family more time for proselytism. Many people I lived with cried ...one woman realised it might be time to now take her daughter to the dentist, which she'd been avoiding for years due to Christ's return being right around the corner. In any case, the sense of urgency is still a strong part of Family life, with a huge amount of internal Family publications dealing with the impending rise of the Antichrist and his one-world government (for example, they publish a biweekly magazine called the END [Endtime News Digest] which deals with just this subject). Further, while they haven't revealed the latest exact year Jesus intends to return & rescue them, Karen Zerby has published prophecies claiming it will absolutely be before her death, and that the Antichrist is already alive and solidifing his power base from behind the scenes. --Monger 3 July 2005 15:51 (UTC)
Recent pro-Family changes and anti-Family changes
Details and some other unnamed contributors have modified many sections of the article to put the Family in a better light. The previous version, for the most part, stated facts, and didn't couch them in apologist terms. I reverted, but Cognomen2, who is a member of the Family, likes the favorable version and reverted back. Can we reach an agreement here? ThePedanticPrick 6 July 2005 00:17 (UTC)
- Pedantic Prick: I have done my best to substantiate every change I made. What's wrong with adding more information? Such as "In common with converts to some other religions, and in keeping with Biblical custom, most incoming members adopted a new "Bible" name. (See Name_change)" This is a fact. what's wrong with adding facts like this? And why do you have to get so personal in your criticisms of my edits? --Details2 7 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)
- I think most of the changes have been discussed, you reverted more then 5 users edits in your mass revert, I think you would need to discuses them one by one and explain what your changing and why. Audiofree
- I disagree. Most of the edits ThePedanticPrick reverted were not agreed upon by the various parties. I support ThePendanticPrick's revert...if it was not for my concious descision to generally avoid editing the CoG article I would have done it long ago. Some modifications that were both clearly beneficial (such as improved grammar) and non-controversial were also wiped out (I intended to restore them until noticing Cognomen2 undid Prick's revert entirely), but IMO a reasonable back-point should be accepted. --Monger 6 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
- None of the recent edits were agreeed to by anyone except the group of pro-COG editors (some of whom, like Claire Borowik and others, apparently work for the Family's public relations board). I haven't had much time lately to edit on Wikipedia but I also disagree with the recent edits by Cognomen2, Details and other contributors who are attempting to transform this Wikipedia article into a mirror of The Family's PR statements. In many cases, their "original" contributions have consisted solely of verbatim and unatrributed copying from Family statements from http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/ and other places. When challenged regarding this blatant plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty, they have simply resorted to paraphrasing Family PR statements without citing the source or even letting the reader know that the position taken is that of the Family and not a neutral point of view necessary if this is to be a reliable and useful Wikipedia article. They are attempting to rewrite their history and remove any specific facts they percieve as damaging to their position. The result of their edits has been that many sections of the article are no longer reliable, factual or NPOV. Cognomen2 has recently removed large sections of the article and claimed it was necessary to get closer to the 32kb limit. Not suprisingly, the parts he chose to cut out are the parts that apparently he percives as damaging or negative such as the quotes from Berg about it taking 266 fucks to produce one "Jesus baby" and Bainbridge's estimate that Family members had sexual contact with 222,989 people during the 1974-1987 Flirty Fishing period. However, the 32kb suggested size is only a suggestion and not a requirement. I don't know how many browsers are out there that have problems with editing articles over 32kb but to get the article down to 32kb, the solution is obviously to break it into smaller articles as Andries and others have suggested. It is simply not possible to even briefly cover the history of the group, its beliefs, practices and other issues in 32kb. Manicmoe 6 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
- Yes disagreements are one thing, that’s what this discussion page is for. But I don’t think mass reverts done by anyone is the answer. And I don’t think that moving whole sections of the article to new pages without discussion like the Prick just did is called for, it seams to me like a slap in the face to those that worked on it. What’s to stop anyone from just moving content they don’t like to a new page and linking. Big changes like that need discussion, and I hope that someone agrees and reverts those changes. If we’re going to split up the article to multiple pages it needs to be discussed and just not one section randomly taken out. Audiofree
- None of the recent edits were agreeed to by anyone except the group of pro-COG editors (some of whom, like Claire Borowik and others, apparently work for the Family's public relations board). I haven't had much time lately to edit on Wikipedia but I also disagree with the recent edits by Cognomen2, Details and other contributors who are attempting to transform this Wikipedia article into a mirror of The Family's PR statements. In many cases, their "original" contributions have consisted solely of verbatim and unatrributed copying from Family statements from http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/ and other places. When challenged regarding this blatant plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty, they have simply resorted to paraphrasing Family PR statements without citing the source or even letting the reader know that the position taken is that of the Family and not a neutral point of view necessary if this is to be a reliable and useful Wikipedia article. They are attempting to rewrite their history and remove any specific facts they percieve as damaging to their position. The result of their edits has been that many sections of the article are no longer reliable, factual or NPOV. Cognomen2 has recently removed large sections of the article and claimed it was necessary to get closer to the 32kb limit. Not suprisingly, the parts he chose to cut out are the parts that apparently he percives as damaging or negative such as the quotes from Berg about it taking 266 fucks to produce one "Jesus baby" and Bainbridge's estimate that Family members had sexual contact with 222,989 people during the 1974-1987 Flirty Fishing period. However, the 32kb suggested size is only a suggestion and not a requirement. I don't know how many browsers are out there that have problems with editing articles over 32kb but to get the article down to 32kb, the solution is obviously to break it into smaller articles as Andries and others have suggested. It is simply not possible to even briefly cover the history of the group, its beliefs, practices and other issues in 32kb. Manicmoe 6 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)
- I disagree. Most of the edits ThePedanticPrick reverted were not agreed upon by the various parties. I support ThePendanticPrick's revert...if it was not for my concious descision to generally avoid editing the CoG article I would have done it long ago. Some modifications that were both clearly beneficial (such as improved grammar) and non-controversial were also wiped out (I intended to restore them until noticing Cognomen2 undid Prick's revert entirely), but IMO a reasonable back-point should be accepted. --Monger 6 July 2005 04:00 (UTC)
- And I intend to put the beliefs section back where it was now. Thanks for the support. Afterwards I may even have time to tackle some of the anti-Family contributors who run a web site with a big X through the Family name as their logo. Talk about claiming NPOV status to their contributions while going on about "pro Family propaganda." What a joke! Cognomen2
- I apologize for not notifying anyone before moving those sections. I was under the impression that everyone agreed that the article was TOO LONG and needed to be broken up into smaller pages. I was at work, and the Beliefs section seemed like an easy one to move and then summarize. Also, that section was almost two pages long! I doubt the average casual browser is interested in such an in-depth discussion of the Family's beliefs, especially since most of the ones described aren't that much different from mainstream Christianity. I'd like to go back to the summary style, and encourage you and others who are more familiar with the beliefs of TFI to summarize what you think is most important. Please see Wikipedia:Summary style for a guideline on how to make this article more readable. Thanks. ThePedanticPrick 7 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
- And I intend to put the beliefs section back where it was now. Thanks for the support. Afterwards I may even have time to tackle some of the anti-Family contributors who run a web site with a big X through the Family name as their logo. Talk about claiming NPOV status to their contributions while going on about "pro Family propaganda." What a joke! Cognomen2
- Okay, now that is done, let's talk. Monger accuses us of wanting it to look like a mirror of the Family's PR statements while all the while trying to get it to look like a mirror of xFamily.org. As it is the article is anything but a mirror of the Family's statement. Manicmoe likes to decry the fact that the Family's material is what some of the contributors are using for reference while he inserts big block quotes of material, some of it far from relevant to an encyclopedia article. There is no plagirism issues here. They are not signing their name to their additions and claiming them as their own, they are simply adding them into a collaborative article. And if the Family is not making an issue about it then no one else has any right to. I deleted some material from both sides of the debate in an effort to cut the article down somewhat. There are a lot of things in this article that I still think have no place in an NPOV encyclopedia and they lack relevance. Other entries on other religious groups do not have lists of names of people presently or in the past in their groups especially since it is just an effort on the anti-Family contributors to advertise names. I don't think the people particularly care that names are up there as these names are out in the public domain anyway. And certainly that 300 babies were born from FFing 20 years ago is of little relevance to an encyclopedia article. --Cognomen2 7 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)
- Cognomen2 First of all, it was me, not Monger, who wrote that some contributors "are attempting to transform this Wikipedia article into a mirror of The Family's PR statements." When some of these contributors, like Mandolin, have replaced sections of the article with unattributed direct quotes from the Family's PR statements, that is a very logical conclusion. Perhaps you don't understand why plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty is not apropropriate in a Wikipedia article so I'll explain it you once again. First of all, when you submit someone else's work as your own, that is plagiarism. It makes no difference at all if you have permission from the Family to use their press releases and public statements without attribution. In fact, I'm sure they would prefer that people copy from them all they want and that the ideas and conclusions in them be presented as independent and objective rather than accurately identified as the ideas and conclusions of the Family's PR department. But a useful encyclopedia article requires that some basic standards of accuracy, objectivity, honesty and integrity be applied. It's fine to use the Family's own publications and statements as reference material (it would be difficult to write an accurate entry without referring to them). However, you still need to accurately and specifically cite your sources. If what you add to the article is a direct quote or a paraphrase of a Family publication, press release or public statement, you need to specifically (by specifically, I mean including the author's name if one was listed, the title and date of the publication, press release or statement, where the original in its entirety can be found, the number of the publication and any other information that will help the reader know where it came from) identify the exact source using a standard citation format. Adding someone else's content to the article and presenting it as your own original work without identifying the source is dishonest and misleading. I'm sure you have different ideas than I do about what is relevant to an encylopedia article on the Children of God. It seems you believe that any specific exploration of the group's practices, beliefs and history are not relevant. I disagree. I do agree with you that comprehensive statistics on the number of "Jesus Babies" born in the group would be be better than one reference to the 300 "Jesus Babies" born in the first few years of FFing. I will have to look up the total numbers but I wouldn't be surprised if it was in the thousands. The fact that possibly thousands of children (constituting a significant percentage of the Family's membership) were born as a result of Flirty Fishing being practiced without the use of birth control is highly relevant to the history of the group. I also believe that all the names of the top leaders and administrators of the group are important and should be listed as they are now in a seperate article. I don't understand why they would want this information kept secret. Almost all other religious groups don't keep the legal names, identities and geographic locations of their leaders secret and in fact make this information widely available both to their own members and the general public. I have looked at some of the other Wikipedia entries on cults or NRMs, such as Scientology and the Unification Church, and quickly found plenty of information, including legal names, about the leaders and administratiors of those groups. It's quite puzzling to me why the Family is so concerned about keeping the legal names, identities and locations of its leaders and administrators a secret from its members and the public. Is there something else they are trying to hide? Manicmoe 8 July 2005 20:40 (UTC)
- Okay, now that is done, let's talk. Monger accuses us of wanting it to look like a mirror of the Family's PR statements while all the while trying to get it to look like a mirror of xFamily.org. As it is the article is anything but a mirror of the Family's statement. Manicmoe likes to decry the fact that the Family's material is what some of the contributors are using for reference while he inserts big block quotes of material, some of it far from relevant to an encyclopedia article. There is no plagirism issues here. They are not signing their name to their additions and claiming them as their own, they are simply adding them into a collaborative article. And if the Family is not making an issue about it then no one else has any right to. I deleted some material from both sides of the debate in an effort to cut the article down somewhat. There are a lot of things in this article that I still think have no place in an NPOV encyclopedia and they lack relevance. Other entries on other religious groups do not have lists of names of people presently or in the past in their groups especially since it is just an effort on the anti-Family contributors to advertise names. I don't think the people particularly care that names are up there as these names are out in the public domain anyway. And certainly that 300 babies were born from FFing 20 years ago is of little relevance to an encyclopedia article. --Cognomen2 7 July 2005 03:26 (UTC)
- Cognomen2: Addressing me, you said, "Monger accuses us of wanting it to look like a mirror of the Family's PR statements while all the while trying to get it to look like a mirror of xFamily.org."
- I'm sorry, but there is no portion of that statement that isn't demonstrably false. I have not made the claim you attribute to me, and I hardly see how making one or two minor edits to this article months ago constitutes anything of the sort you describe. Lying in order to make a point is not a level of discourse I am prepared to sink to with you. --Monger 7 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
This is a web page about a religious movement. As a religious movement, it is defined by its religious views. So it makes sense to have a section on beliefs at the top of the article and I don't agree with it being moved out. As far as the discussion between pro and anti-Family members. They both have a perspective. They both have views. but don't both groups have a right to put in their perceptions of facts. Isn't an encylopedia about factual information? And it isn't it then up to the reader to make the judgement call on whether they feel this group is being portrayed in a positive light or not. Take the info on Flirty Fishing. It's been debated and edited back and forth. Nobody denies flirty fishing took place. There can be a debate on whether the motives were "evangelism" or "money making" or mixture of both. Whether members volunteered or were expected to take part. etc. Surely an encyclopedia needs both viewpoints. Can't we add in info and bring in "both sides" without being accused of "rewriting history". --Details2 7 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)
Details2: I agree that an encyclopedia should contain factual information on whatever the subject matter is. Has this encyclopedia concurred that TFI is simply a "NRM" (New Religious Movement)or a "HDC" (Highly Destructive Cult)? In an entry of an encyclopedia on "Hitler" I would not expect to see the pros and cons or the middle ground of what Hitler meant for the world. Regarding TFI now as it stands and regarding its true history and the availability of information from verifiable sources, I think information and discovery are going to be what formulates how TFI is ultimately defined in history. At this point I think it is erroneous to say some sort of middle ground must be struck for accuracy to occur.- Warheit
- Warheit: The comparison to Hitler is highly offensive, not the least to the many Jewish members of our organization. I would hope that you in your search for facts would indeed go to third party sites for information. May I recommend the University of Virginia's page on us [3] or the information on us at the Center for the Study of New Religions in Italy found here [4] or if you would read some of the various scholarly books written about us such as "The Endtime Family: Children of God" by Dr. William Bainbridge published by State University of New York Press. There you will find honest third party information about us. If you rely only on sites like xFamily.org which it seems you have looked at and reposted information from here then you are getting a one-sided view of things. I know what I am saying here is going to make some of the other posters here howl as xFamily.org is their site and they are in diametric opposition to us. You might also look at the various legal actions initiated against the Family as a whole, not some that involved only individuals, as are often touted by some other posters here, and I believe you will see a different picture emerging. Again, I imagine you to be an honest seeker of truth here and I hope you will investigate with an open mind. Also, I do hope you will be more sensitive in future to how you label us and who you compare us to. It is highly offensive to label a group that has at times undergone intense persecution with someone who was manical dictator who persecuted and/or killed the parents and grandparents of some of my close friends in this group. --Cognomen2 02:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Cognomen2: Yes. I am a truth seeker. I realize TFI has a minority number of Jewish adherents. It must be really a struggle for them to reconcile Berg's LATER writings concerning Jews. He even wrote about hearing that burning the fatter ones at the bottom helped the fire burn better. It just shows how a HDC can effect people to their core, even to denying their own roots and ethnicity.-Warheit
- Ironically, it's your own prophet that the Jewish members of your organization should be offended by. In his own words:
- "May God damn the God-damned Jews! My God, I think if I could get over there and had a gun I think I'd shoot 'em myself! My God damn them in Jesus' name! In Jesus' name, strike! Strike! Strike! God damn the Jews! Those Anti-Christ, Christ-hating Jews, God damn them! O God, if I had a gun I'd shoot them myself! God damn the Jews! God damn them, God damn them, God damn them, in Jesus' name! Damn the anti-Christ Jews! Damn them O God! God damn them!" ("A Prayer for the Poor!", 681:23,25,33,34,35,76)
- "Hitler was either a scourge on the World's sin, or a saviour to try to save them from the Communists, depending on how you look at it! And God didn't stop him until he'd done his part & his damage & just about gotten rid of the World's biggest scourge, the Jews!" ("The Course of History Must Go On!", 2190:3,4)
- "That's one of the biggest problems they had at Treblinka, was burning the dead! They found out finally if they put the fat ones on the bottom that the fat was in the fire & it really burned bright & it helped burn all the bodies! I guess they didn't have any trouble finding fat ones. There must have been some fat ones left, so they couldn't have starved them all to death, as they were supposed to have done, blah, blah! ("The Troublemakers!--And the Solution!", 1222:83) ThePedanticPrick
- I am not defending David Berg's more extreme comments about Jews. However, to be fair he also condemned Hitler as listed in the extracts from his writings following. He condemned the Israeli persecution and subjugation of the Palestinians and the illegal occupation and their lands and this boiled over into more extreme comments. However, the Family has always had a significant population of Jews and DB also acknowledged his own Jewish ancestry.
- Aside from this however, it is interesting that you, TPP, are back on since you were claiming on another site that you had been banned by Wikipedia administration for offensive behavior or an offensive name or something.--Cognomen2 17:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Germany was saved from communism by a rise of the hard right, rich-backed, militant, radical, reactionary and fanatical Nazis under the leadership of Hitler, a rabid anti-Semitist. He used the Jews as a scapegoat upon whom he could blame all of Germany's troubles, accusing them of being the Communist enemies of the State. His maniacal tirades against the Jews as being to blame for all Germany's ills soon whipped the poor German people into a frenzy of reaction against them, resulting in all kinds of discrimination and persecution. Signs barred Jews from many places of business, and a campaign of vilification and contempt was heaped upon them. They were prejudiced against in the courts, and harassed by Hitler's police, his private militia, the Storm Troopers of his Nazi Party of radical, Rightist reactionaries. Soon Hitler was able to make their persecution more official: Since he claimed they were not Germans but they were Communist enemies of the State they no longer deserved the protection of the police, since he accused them of not only being no longer German citizens, but enemies. This permitted the German Rightists to destroy their places of business, persecute, beat, and even kill Jews, without fear of retaliation by the police. They had already been barred from many kinds of employment considered important to German culture or security, ineligible for Government welfare, and their books and papers and literature banned and burned. Then the threat of war gave Hitler and his terrorists the excuse they needed to convince the German people that the Jews should be rounded up into concentration camps as a serious threat to national security, the same way America rounded up the Japanese and put them in concentration camps in the United State during World War II, claiming it was not only for the protection of the Nation but for their own protection. Their property was confiscated in the name of the State, and in these concentration camps Hitler began the secret extermination of the Jews by highly scientific and intelligent methods of mass murder. It eventually became so patriotic to kill Jews that, for example, Hitler's henchman in the Nazi-conquered Poland apologized for being so slow at the job because there were so many of them there--about 3-1/2 million! You may say that it's almost unbelievable that a nation as civilised, intellectual, highly educated, scientific, and advanced as Germany could ever be guilty of such horrible atrocities against a helpless minority of its own people who had lived there for generations and consider themselves as Germans in all walks of life! But the most highly educated and so-called most advanced civilization on the face of the earth became the most bestial and barbaric in its reign of terror against this pitiful minority of its own people just because a fanatical and persuasive orator convinced the Germans that the Jews were their deadly enemies and a terrible danger to their country! (162:15-19)
- Sholem Asch wrote on the conditions in post-WWI Germany which brought Hitler to power. He showed the picture of Germany--what was wrong with Germany--what happened to Germany and why Hitler was created--the monster was created to devour the lesser monster [communism]--so they created a bigger monster! (108:15)
- Let me tell you, there were horrors that occurred in Germany, don't excuse'm! And don't excuse Hitler either, I'm sure he's gone to his reward & I doubt if it's up Above! I haven't excused Hitler. 1272:102
- Now I'm not saying I like Hitler, don't misunderstand me, I think he became a monster! 2095:70
- (When speaking of the possibility of the wicked being rehabilitated in the afterlife) I think I'm getting more & more to where I don't know whether you could ever rehabilitate or convert some of those guys, like the Devil & the Antichrist, the False Prophet, Hitler & some of the worst characters in history & the cruelest tyrants & whatnot. 2142:9
- Britain had gone to war to save Poland from the monster Hitler, & then in the end, in the peace, they gave Poland to an even worse monster--Stalin! Think of it! It's almost inconceivable that they would have done such a thing! 2584:7
- Cognomen2: Berg reversed his stance dramatically on Jews after his Kibbutz dream fell through when he realized a Christian Kibbutz with a Zionist bent who would want to proselytize in Israel (early COG) would not be accepted. He then began, in his delusional state, to see Israeli's as demons. He even went so far as to publish literature promoting Mo'ammar Khadaffi of Lybia and visited him in Lybia as did a number of his own biological family and other top leadership. His vitriol against Jews grew to an extent that rivals Hitler. - Warheit.
- Cognomen, I was not blocked for offensive behaviour and I think you know that--a capricious admin took umbrage at my username and blocked me AND my IP address without any warning or discussion, an action which is currently being appealed. In any case, I wouldn't be getting too excited about my potential banning if I were you, as I'm a lot more neutral than these other wikipedians you've been bickering with during my absence. You and I stand a much better chance of working together than, say, Warheit and Kibbitzer, who are so married to their viewpoints that they've forgotten this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Stay cool. ThePedanticPrick
PedanticPrick: I am an individual who you do not know. I do not personally, to my knowledge, know anyone contributing to this site. I don't see myself as "so married to [my] viewpoint" that I have forgotten this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. I keep in mind, though new to the site, that it is for factual information and not unsubstantiated opinion. What I am glad for is that I am not in an HDC mindset anymore where I have to define myself according to any "leader's" definition of who I am or what I am saying, or find it necessary to assassinate anyone's character who does not think exactly like me. At the times I have become more heated is when disputing what is or is not factually doctrine or practice within TFI from its history according to what I know from personal experience and research. Cognomen suggested some studies to read. I find outside studies by professionals who are unaware of the intensity of prepping of children and adults as to how to act and react around media and academics to be unreliable. - Warheit
- ThePedanticPrick: Welcome back! I must admitt I am pretty disappointed in Warheit who I see more or less came in under false pretenses, feigning ignorance of certain things which he/she knew full well. But I look forward to "working together" with you. But you must admit that saying that the inmates (read Family members) are running the asylum with reference to this article is pretty offensive don't you think?--Cognomen2 00:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen, thanks for the welcome. I should mention that I made those comments on a different discussion board, so I feel no obligation to either retract repeat them here. I look forward to our continued participation in making this article a fair, balanced, and accurate representation of the Family International. Please look over my recent edits and let me know if there is anything you disagree with. ThePedanticPrick 18:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- ThePedanticPrick: Welcome back! I must admitt I am pretty disappointed in Warheit who I see more or less came in under false pretenses, feigning ignorance of certain things which he/she knew full well. But I look forward to "working together" with you. But you must admit that saying that the inmates (read Family members) are running the asylum with reference to this article is pretty offensive don't you think?--Cognomen2 00:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen2: I have not come here under any "false" pretenses or under any authority from Cult or Anti-cult. I came here as an individual and you are entitled to your opinion to approve of me or not. I am not here to approve of YOU or any other personality here or not. I am here writing about my experience and research regarding TFI and have as much right as anyone else here to comment about it and would respect any challenge to the legitimacy of what I am writing about.- Warheit
Splitting article
I vote to move Beliefs, Notable Members, and Leadership (etc) sections immediately to new articles, and to move the other topics as soon as summary paragraphs can be hashed out and agreed upon by both sides. I also do not understand the current members' insistence on having a massive dissertation on their belief system at the beginning of the article. Trim it down, or I'll keep moving it. Thank you! ThePedanticPrick 7 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)
- I would vote to move "6 Programs, projects, and productions" and "7 Leadership, Regional Offices, and Management" to new articles with links, both these sections are very long (6 of 19 of the pages on my screen). Each could have a small intro with a link to the new article. As far as beliefs I think some content should stay on that, as like others have said beliefs are important to a religious group, which this article is about. I do think it could be cut down some and maybe linked to a larger article with more full descriptions, but I think it's more informative to the average reader then a long string of names they’ve never heard of. Audiofree
- I actually meant to vote for moving "Programs, projects, and productions" in my first comment. ThePedanticPrick 7 July 2005 18:31 (UTC)
- I have moved the sections Audiofree and I agreed on to new articles. I also cut a few paragraphs out of the Beliefs section that I thought described pretty standard Christian/biblical beliefs. I apologize if I deleted a very important belief that anyone feels deserves mentioning at the beginning of the article. ThePedanticPrick 7 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)
- I provisionally agree with what you have done here. It will take a while to look over things carefully to make a final decision which I don't have the time for right now. Thanks for your work on this.--Cognomen2 7 July 2005 20:49 (UTC)
- Looks good to me Audiofree
Obfuscations, prevarications, propaganda, and outright lies
I'd like to address these recent pro-Family edits one by one:
"However (Berg's) speculations went further than this." This doesn't tell the reader anything. Could it be implying that Berg molested both his daughters, his granddaughter, Davida Kelley, and possibly numerous other girls? Is it hinting at his dreams of having sex with his own mother?
"Thus a concern arose about the possibility that they could be involved in inappropriate relations. This concern prompted the Family to remove from circulation any publications related to such matters in what was an official renouncement of these teachings." Yes, and I'm sure persecution had nothing to do with it.
"The 700-page book also included a dozen or so photographs depicting the child in the company of his governesses, particularly Sara (also known as Sara Davidito, Sara Kelley, or Prisca Kelley), in suggestive positions." Describing fondling and fellating a toddler is not "suggestive", it's explicit. Don't make me find the quotes and post them here.
Why can't you cult-members get it through your heads that this is an encyclopedia, not a press-release from Claire Borowik? Why must you insist on rewriting the past? Considering the The Family is now regarded as a safe environment for children, doesn't all this lying and deception hurt you more? ThePedanticPrick 8 July 2005 00:18 (UTC)
Cases?
PedanticPrick: What open cases and undropped charges against Family members from the '90s are you referring to in your summary comment on your last edit?--Cognomen2 23:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- It appears that the case in Argentina was never closed, but merely returned to a lower court due to disagreement about Marquevich's jurisdiction(Case file) There is also the case of the woman who won a one-million dollar award against Berg (Judgement). There are also some kidnapping charges against other Family-members, whose names I can't think of off the top of my head. I don't know whether those charges have been dropped. ThePedanticPrick 00:15, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- The case in Argentina close of July 27, 2004 when the appeals made by the prosecutor against the Appeals Court ruling was allowed to lapse, I think that is the legal term, by the Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, Judge Marquevich was impeached one month earlier for abuse of power. As for the kidnapping charges I know nothing about them. The Krounopple (I think that is her name) case was civil so there were no charges. She was award one million in damages in a case where no defense was present because the defendant didn't know it was happening. --Cognomen2 00:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- In April 2005, Claire Borowik stated "The lower court did not review the case until 2004, at which time they granted final closure on July 27, 2004. (Causa No. 342.886, Juzgado en lo Criminal y Correctional de Transicion No.2) There are no current pending investigations or court cases in Argentina." This was the first time that she or any spokesperson for the Family had publicly claimed the the Cavazza case ended in July 2004. However, Borowik provided no evidence to support her assertions and claims and without reference to the actual court documents, it is not possible to determine the actual outcome of the case. Contrary to Borowik's assertion that "there are no current pending investigations and court cases in Argentina," Argentina is a nation of millions of people with an active law enforcement and judicial system and thus there are always pending investigations and court cases. Furthermore, the Cavazza case was only one of several related court cases in Argentina. The Family does not mention some of these other cases because no one in their right mind would ever interpret the outcome as favorable to them. For example, Brian Edward Pickus has been a fugitive from justice since 1980 when it is alleged that he, 20 members of the Family and four hired goons entered the home of Candy Ann Pickus, savagely beat her and kidnapped two of her children. He then went to California with the abducted children, obtained forged passports and fled to Spain and later to Argentina. In 1989, he was arrested in Bahia Blanca, Argentina on an outstanding Interpol warrant from the United States on charges of burglary, kidnapping and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. The Family paid $70,000 in cash to bail him out of jail and spent thousands of dollars on lawyers to appeal his extradition. However, in July 1998 the Argentine Supreme Court ordered his capture and extradition to the U.S. He then fled again and as of February 2005, was still a member of the Family International in Brazil. The Interpol warrant against him is still outstanding and he is still wanted by the FBI and the state of Hawaii. It is quite accurate to say that, despite the Family's claim that all its members who have been charged with crimes have been exonerated, acquitted or had all charges dropped, Brian Edward Pickus has not been acquitted or exonerated and in fact is an international fugitive from justice whom the family has been unlawfully sheltering and protecting for many years. There are many more examples of similar cases in Argentina and elsewhere but I think that one example will suffice for now. It is also important to note that Judge Marquevich's impeachment had nothing to do with the Cavazza case or the Family. It was the result of a political dispute. The Family would like its members to believe that any misfortune, negative event or natural disaster that happens to a person, region or nation it percieves as an enemy is the result of its political and spiritual influence and power. However, the facts make it clear that its delusions of power and influence are absurd and ridiculous.
- The case in Argentina close of July 27, 2004 when the appeals made by the prosecutor against the Appeals Court ruling was allowed to lapse, I think that is the legal term, by the Supreme Court. Interestingly enough, Judge Marquevich was impeached one month earlier for abuse of power. As for the kidnapping charges I know nothing about them. The Krounopple (I think that is her name) case was civil so there were no charges. She was award one million in damages in a case where no defense was present because the defendant didn't know it was happening. --Cognomen2 00:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen2's assertions regarding the Krounapple/Una McManus case are incorrect. It is true that David Berg, as happened on many other occasions when he was sought by civil and criminal judicial authorities, failed to show up in court as ordered. However, the Family or the Children of God and the other defendants were represented by counsel and they fought her case at every oppurtunity and were unsucessful in trying to get it dismissed and in reducing the damages. There were many hearings and a lot of evidence presented and it took quite a long time for the judgement to be issued. David Berg knew all about it from the start and was involved in the defense of the case and the hiring of the lawyers. He just was not willing to take the risk of personally returning to the United States to take care of his legal obligations. Manicmoe 01:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Which investigations?
The wording I've reverted says that they've been found to be safe. Found to be safe by whom? If those investigations are reliably cited, I will withdraw. Fire Star 04:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- They haven't cited the investigations which supposedly found the group to be a safe environment for children because if they did, the evidence would clearly indicate that the Family has repeatedly been found to be a safe environment for child molesters and abusers rather than children and that the Family has instituted stringent policies to protect child molesters and abusers and prevent them from being held accountable for their actions. For example, the Family's official policies (most recently in their June 2003 amendments to the Rights of Children and the Right of Redress sections of their "Love Charter") punish members who opt to comply with mandatory child abuse reporter laws and their current child abuse excommunication policy is selectively enforced, only applies to some types of child abuse and apparently does not apply at all to those who sexually and physically abused children before December 1988. Manicmoe 10:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- If the cult members have Justice Ward's Judgment in mind and insist on keeping the wording Fire Star removed, it would only be fair to also note in the introductiory paragraph of this article that said Judgment documented an extensive history of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse of children, and further found that these practices were both sanctioned and engaged in by numerous top leaders of the cult (including Berg, Zerby, Kelly, Kelley, and so on and on). It's normal that many would not accept claims by known child abusers that they are now policing themselves (while refusing any outside help in this regard) to prevent what they practiced and encouraged in the past. --Monger 13:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- The following are only largely judicial findings. Time prevents me from citing all the investigations by social scientist and others. But if this does not qualify for the use of the wording " and has been repeatedly found to be a safe environment for children" I don't know what does. --Cognomen2 16:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- After analyzing the different points brought out in relation to each individual case (e.g., social-environmental reports, declarations from relatives, personal contact between myself and each one of the minors), and taking into account that the parents and/or guardians of the minors who live here at the residence were left in liberty and that those from the residence were not indicted, I concluded on the basis of my sincere conviction that the minors find themselves in an environment fit for their physical and moral development, due to which the extreme conditions required for this Court to intervene according to what is stipulated in article 10, clause 2a of Provincial Law number 10067, are not evident. (Judge Eleonora Mercedes Fernandez de Zingoni, Minor's Court of San Isidro, Case No. 17.142, Buenos Aires, Argentina, December 19, 1989.)
- [The Department of Community Services] denies any and all implications which may have arisen in the opening statement made in its case or in other evidence in the Children's Court at Cobham that all children the subject of the applications had been subjected to physical sexual assault or had engaged in sexual intercourse. (Quotation from settlement mediated by Sir Lawrence Street, former Supreme Court Justice, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.)
- We are very happy to have been able to visit the above-described institution the Family, as we have never visited a home that showed such loving attention in their care of the children, though these are accompanied by their parents. We only regret that other homes dedicated to the care of children do not reflect the beauty, the love, and the living conditions offered by the Family. (Director of the Department of Investigations of the First Children's Court, Dr. Wilherme Borges, First Children's Court of Rio de Janeiro, Case number 57,931/92, November 14, 1994.)
- Having been demonstrated by regular means that the education utilized via the "homeschooling" method adopted in a religious community is equal to or better than the official education, there is no error or omission on the part of the parents or guardians which would cause the imposition of exceptional measures such as guardianship, especially since the law guarantees to the parents the right to choose the type of education to be given to their children. Appeal granted. (Justice Adolphino Ribeiro, Judicial Council of the State of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Appeal number 948/94, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, January 30, 1995.
- An analysis of the alleged acts, on the basis of personal inspection carried out by the court personnel, has not proven in any way whatsoever any acts or activities contrary to the morals and the good customs, and much less has there been any evidence of corruption of minors or of women, but instead we have found that in a private fashion they spiritually exercise their freedom of religion in a way which is compatible with their own personal customs. (Judicial file number 307–87, Lima, Peru, July 30, 1990.)
- After conducting the necessary inquiries; examining the sworn statements of members of the group; verifying [all aspects of] the premises in which the aforementioned religious fellowship holds its activities; gathering a considerable amount of documentation about the group; analyzing its publications and official statements; performing medical, gynecological, psychological and psychiatric examinations on the children as well as footprint identification studies; as a result of the inquiries carried out on the premises, and information gathered by a number of governmental and law enforcement agencies such as, DIVISE [anti-kidnapping], DIRANDRO [narcotics], INTERPOL, Missing Persons Division, Immigrations Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, SUNAT [National Revenue Service], as well as different written and televised material gathered from media sources, and additional information collected by this Office in the course of the investigation; according to which this office has been able to establish that no evidence was found of irregularities in the legal status of any of the minors of the communities. There is no sign of neglect or failure to provide their essential needs, such as adequate diet, housing, and dress. Although their views constitute a rather peculiar interpretation of the Gospels, in no way is this legally questionable nor can it substantiate criminal charges. According to results of medical, gynecological, psychological, and psychiatric examinations performed on the children there is no evidence whatsoever of moral or physical damage nor signs of psychosis. Therefore such probabilities remain unsubstantiated. After extensive, thorough, and drawn-out investigations on the activities and behavior of members of the communities in our country, we have not been able to find the slightest shred of evidence to substantiate any of the allegations of supposed criminal offenses, illegal activities or immoral behavior. Therefore having completed all pertinent inquiries in accordance with resolution N. 1143-93-MP-FN this Ad-Hoc District Attorney's Office resolves: "There are no merits to press charges in the case, therefore this investigation is to be closed." (Ad Hoc Prosecutor, Rebeca Fuentes Sanchez, Lima Peru.)
- They [the children] were put in the hands of a group of psychologists who, in a language the children did not understand [Catalan], psychoanalyzed them twice for a prolonged period and issued reports cast in esoteric language designed rather to justify the operation than to describe any intellectual anomalies, which are completely non-existent.…Therefore in light of the fact that nothing unusual was found in any of the children beyond the natural bewilderment of someone who is living in a foreign country and is forcibly separated from their parents despite their tender years and is taught in an unknown language, the supposed judgment of neglect should have been annulled as it is hereby agreed to do and the parents are perfectly free to live with their children in whichever country they consider best and to orient them towards whatever moral, religious, or philosophical convictions they believe to be appropriate.( Judges: Adolfo Fernandez Oubiña, Jesus I. Perez Burred, and Jose Mã. Bachs Estany, Case numbers: 157 to 163/1992, Barcelona, Spain, Ruling on May 21, 1992.
- The [Family] community maintains a disciplined communal way of life, distributing the responsibilities [among its members]. There is no proof existing that there is any coercive behavior. In accordance with their moral leading they teach their school-age children through homeschooling, in a manner similar to that of religious boarding schools. Their classes are complemented with readings of the Bible and other texts. The adults in the community show a great love and tenderness [toward the children]. The psychiatric reports are unanimous in vehemently dismissing any mental illness or any kind of psychosis or psychopathy.( Judges: Miguel Rodriguez-Piñero Bravo-Ferrer, Fernando Garcia-Mon Gonzalez-Regueral, Carlos de la Vega Benayas, Vicente Gimeno Sendra, Rafael de Mendizabal Allende, and Pedro Cruz Villalon, Appeal numbers: 1561 to 1567/1992, Verdict dated October 3, 1994.)
- We find ourselves in the presence of a community of people who have adopted a lifestyle that differs from the generally accepted norms. Not a single element is found that could allow us to declare the existence of any intention to hurt their children or the other children of the community. They avoid sending their school-aged children to official institutions of learning choosing to teach them themselves using the method that in Anglo-Saxon countries is known as homeschooling. To proclaim the superiority of one education system over another would inevitably lead us to apply value judgments. Judges cannot enter into the sanctuary of personal beliefs, except when external behaviors originating from a particular ideology negatively affect legally protected rights. (October 30, 1994, the Supreme Court of Spain: Judges: Enrique Ruiz Vadillo, Jose Antonio Martin Pallin, and Justo Carrero Ramos, Appeal number: 3032/93, Verdict number 1669/94, October 30, 1994)
- The Family way of living brings many positive aspects: The children always have helpers around them. They have adults and older children to whom they can turn, which gives them a feeling of security. The children also have a close circle of friends. The Family way of life includes learning to care for others, taking communal responsibility, and sharing material things. They also have common values that result in a secure, common foundation. The Family is a well-organized, communal group. In our investigation we have come to the conclusion that the way of life of the children in the Family is different from that of other Swedish children. These differing circumstances that have been described are not considered a danger to the health and development of the children. (May 9, 1994. report, by Valbo Social Services Department Secretaries Monika Quadt and Per Sbrink, Sweden.)
- I am very sorry your community has fallen victim to such strenuous and continual evaluations. It appears there is an overwhelming effort to defame your group and its existence, and I cannot explain why this continues. I am, therefore, by copy of this letter, asking for further information as to the purpose of these investigations by government agencies involved. (July 8, 1993 from Deane Dana, Supervisor of the 4th District, County of Los Angeles.)
- After a detailed and intensive study of the documents that make up this indictment investigation, this Superior Court affirms that all of the necessary procedures have been carried out in accordance with the law, as though there was a crime, when in fact there was no evidence of any crime found after visiting the residence where lived [21 children, members of the Family]. [It] was proved that the aforementioned minors lived with their respective parents in a community constituted by families that chose this particular way of life with their own standard of education, health, work, and social and spiritual ideology inspired in a way of life taken from the New Testament. [This Court] declares this present investigation closed for finding no grounds for prosecution. (Fifth Superior Court of the State of Zulia, Venezuela, Case numbers 133 and 192, May 27, 1992)
- I repeat that I am satisfied that wrongs of the past have been stamped out. I am not wholly sanguine about all aspects of S's future because The Family are and will remain a minority religious movement whose way of life will not appeal to the majority of the communities in which they live. Their children will live a different life. It is however in my judgement not a life beyond the pale. Within the limits of tolerance which make ours a free society Family life no longer presents such risks of harm that I would still be justified in removing this child from this mother. By harm I mean sexual abuse or any form of ill treatment or any impairment of health or intellectual, emotional, social or behavioral development, in the colour coding of harm. (Lord Justice Ward, W 42 1992 in the High Court of Justice, Family Division, Principal Registry in the matter of St (A Minor), and in the matter of the Supreme Court Act 1991)
- I am satisfied with the present wording of the article, by ThePedanticPrick, which is both more neutral and more informative on the issue than either wording was before. Fire Star 20:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am not and will make some changes. How can allegations as stated in that introduction take precedence over fact as recorded in the above judicial findings? How can a group harbor and shield abusers from prosecution? If there are charges then the police go and arrest the ones charged and no one can do anything about stopping them. Where and what are the charges laid with law enforcement agencies that the Family is shielding someone from prosecution from? Where and what is the civil litigation that is supposedly being launched? This is the height of POV if none of these things can be substantiated. It is far from neutral and not worthy of Wikipedia.--Cognomen2 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have seen the Family publications requesting prayer against two girls who were trying to prosecute Philip Sloan, and it's my understanding that the Family played a significant role in defending him. That's beside the point though, because the article says critics believe the Family is shielding pedophiles, it doesn't state as fact that they are doing so. I agree that "shield from prosecution" is a bit hard to define, but I think that it's worth mentioning that many people who abused children before 1988 were not handed over to authorities or even excommunicated. This is a fact. If it bothers you, perhaps you could write Zerby and ask her to kick out all the pedophiles so you can proudly say "There are no child abusers in the Family!"
- The FBI is investigating the Family, this was annonunced on the news(http://www.lamatteryresource.org/Media/Television/KFMB/04052005). The civil litigation is more of a rumor, so you could take that out if you like. ThePedanticPrick 21:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I am not and will make some changes. How can allegations as stated in that introduction take precedence over fact as recorded in the above judicial findings? How can a group harbor and shield abusers from prosecution? If there are charges then the police go and arrest the ones charged and no one can do anything about stopping them. Where and what are the charges laid with law enforcement agencies that the Family is shielding someone from prosecution from? Where and what is the civil litigation that is supposedly being launched? This is the height of POV if none of these things can be substantiated. It is far from neutral and not worthy of Wikipedia.--Cognomen2 21:17, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I could say critics of the Family are involved in all sorts of nefarious actions with as much authority as you say critics of the Family believe the Family is shielding pedophiles. How are we shielding them and from whom? So what if the FBI is investigating. What charges have been laid? The FBI can investigate whoever they want but that shows no proof of guilt. The FBI never confirms or denies whether it has a certain investigation underway. Just because a TV station says it does not substantiate it. And just because you have "an understanding" of something, if you can't substantiate it then don't put it down as fact. Philip Sloan is no longer a member and hasn't been for some time. I "understand" that whatever accusations were laid against him were aired in an emancipation case his daughter brought. It seems no charges were laid. If you can only bring "I understand" to the argument then that is pretty flimsy and doesn't warrant being in this article. And if you point to lamatteryresource as a site for your information then please do tell me why Jim LaMattery is banned from posting on any of the exmember sites? --Cognomen2 22:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Cognomen. The rulings cited are quite clear. They are the decisions of courts in a variety of countries. If this article is going to be any use to the readers it needs to be clear what are FACTS, as these documents are verifiable, and what are OPINIONS and UNSUBSTANTIATED accusations. If allegations have been made repeatedly, then it makes sense to mention them in the article, but surely not to afford them the same weight as judicial findings. --Details2 22:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Greetings all. And to Details 2 and Cognomen 2: I am aware that Maria aka/Karen Zerby aka/Rianna Smith/aka Mama Maria, the leader of TFI, broke ground with David Berg in introducing prostitution, pedophilia and incest as doctrine under the "Law of Love" that she now accuses others of going beyond the boundaries of when she herself along with Berg instituted the doctrines that are criminal in nature. Materials may be burned, but the witness of thousands of ex-members does substantiate that what I have just written is fact. A court of law has not been able to do it due to top lawyers used by the family and Maria being in undisclosed locations. Maria has never fully renounced those practices and in at least one writing wanted to be sure, even at some possible future legal risk to be sure that youth realized Berg did not have it wrong with the "Law of Love. Just some things were more expedient for survival purposes. Things like writing Charters and being even more security conscious of what reaches the outside world were results of public pressure. Children and followers are coached on how to respond to media and professionals. This cannot provide an accurate analysis of TFI and their alleged "safety" for children. If Maria meant what she said in the charter regarding how to deal with child molesters, she would have to excommunicate herself and turn herself into authorities. Instead she remains in undisclosed locations, away from the public and the arm of the law. Name changes, frequent moves to foreign countries, forged documents, etc. have been used to protect her. I would think her world is getting smaller right about now. Details 2 and Cognomen 2, it is my hope that you can consider that what I am saying is accurate as much as you have been trained to dismiss it. I do understand how for purposes of security and reasons of "they-the world-won't understand" you probably firmly believe in what you are saying. < Orion 1 >
Introduction
Kibbitzer: Thank you for your edits. Although a vast improvement, I am not totally in agreement with you. What other radical methods of evangelization besides FFing are you referring to? And I don't think "roughly and graphically worded" is characterstic of the majority of DB's writings. Some, I will admitt, but only some could be described this way.--Cognomen2 21:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- "What other radical methods of evangelization besides FFing are you referring to?" -- What about marches through cities wearing sackcloth and ashes?
- Regarding your other objection, describing Berg's writings as "roughly and graphically worded", I have removed it. As you mentioned, not all his writings could be described this way, and I found it to be unnecessary to go into in the intro. --Crocc 01:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, didn't think of the marches or other examples. And things like talking to people about God in nightclubs or dance halls is more related to FFing. As for my choice of adjectives used to describe Berg's writings, I agree with you both, not necessary. I will be submitting some other changes to the intro, taking into account your suggestions. Thanks. Actually the cited Encarta article is in error regarding Freecog initially contending with the COG about sexual practices. The founder explains in his book that his young son received a Gospel tract from the COG, and he was offended his son was approached. In fact, I had actually made a submission to Encarta about that same article yesterday. Freecog predated COG "sharing" and FFing. Let's see if they will change it. The post-Freecog ACM, of course, is a different matter.
- This is why I will revert parts of the intro. I'd like to keep out the repeated poking at the group in the intro, so readers can get an idea what they're about. To call observations that the COG were known for their drop-out message and followed the Early Church pattern for living, "hyperbolic," and deleting links is a little overreactive (IMO), and I will restore that, as it's relevant information. If someone is going to attack (or defend) an entity, at least it needs to be known what that entity is, does, and believes. None of that particular (deleted) info was subjective. Perhaps placing most of the criticisms in the "Criticism" part of the article will make things more compact (or if that section becomes too long, perhaps split it into its own article), and therefore more clear and less contentious. Having it continally throughout the article muddies the waters so it's hard to know who it is that you're supposed to love or hate.--Kibbitzer 05:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, you want the intro to portray what YOU want people to think the group is about. I want it to be a brief summary of the history of your group, from the perspective of an outsider. This means the facts about what differentiate it from other groups, the controversy, past and present, surrounding the group, and the current state of affairs. NOT dissertations on doctrine and a bunch of weasely PR language. ThePedanticPrick 02:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think I see the problem. You say you want the intro to be a "summary of the history" of the group, whereas I think readers want the intro to briefly cover what the group is about. By the way, what do you have against weasels? "Weasels are immune to a basilisk's glare and venom[5]."--Kibbitzer 06:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think you are mistaken about what readers want. Most people are not terribly interested in the religious beliefs of obscure sects—that sect's relation with society as a whole is far more interesting. And besides, the group's history IS a fundamental part of what it is about. ThePedanticPrick 21:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- I think I see the problem. You say you want the intro to be a "summary of the history" of the group, whereas I think readers want the intro to briefly cover what the group is about. By the way, what do you have against weasels? "Weasels are immune to a basilisk's glare and venom[5]."--Kibbitzer 06:32, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- This article should not be about inciting love or hate. It is about presenting pertinent information accurately and in the best method for readers. Controversy, critisizm and "persecution" have been a centerpiece of the group's 37-year history, and attempts to minimalize or downplay this is POV agenda on full display. (Of course, exaggeration must also be avoided.) FREECOG did predate FFing but not all of their unconventional sexuality, and describing the anticult movement's primary objection to the COG as due to their living like the apostles is hyperbolic. I have reverted factual errors, POV spin, and unnecessary verbosity from the intro (unweildiness is already enough of a problem with this article & needs not extend to the intro). --Monger 14:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- No, you want the intro to portray what YOU want people to think the group is about. I want it to be a brief summary of the history of your group, from the perspective of an outsider. This means the facts about what differentiate it from other groups, the controversy, past and present, surrounding the group, and the current state of affairs. NOT dissertations on doctrine and a bunch of weasely PR language. ThePedanticPrick 02:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Do others also feel the article should be censored regarding pertinent information? Protestant Christians living communally is an important and unique foundational facet of the COG, and the fact their members dropped out of school, jobs, etc., to join fulltime is a major factor triggering the ACM--sex was NOT an issue until flirty fishing started. Reference to a Charter (codifying resolve to fix things) has been cut again, as well as agreed upon mention of the COG's basic activities in the context of controversy. Seems facts are being deleted, not hyperbole. (And what is "unconventional sexuality," pray tell?) Re: the "love / hate" comment: Readers need to know what it is they are reading about so THEY can make up their OWN minds about this group. Deleting facts hinders that process and is contrary to the Wikipedian spirit (IMHO).--Kibbitzer 00:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Kibbitzer: In my opinion, features that distinguish the group as an entity are what should be included. I agree that non-Catholic Christians living communally is a distinguishing feature, along with the rejection of secular employment and schooling. I also agree that this "dropping out" of society was what prompted the ACM opposition, not sexual behaviour. Young people leaving their jobs, families and former religions, to "forsake all for Jesus", and "preaching the Gospel" was the subject of initial publicity about the group in the 60s and early 70s, as far as I have seen. As far as the Charter, if this is the basis of the group's governing structure, this also should be mentioned in the Introduction if the Introduction is meant to be a brief overview. --Details2 12:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- The only thing unconventional sexually about the Family in the early '70s was that there wasn't any sex going on except for those who were married. FREECOG was formed by angry parents because their adult children were dropping out of university or their careers to join the GOG. And they resorted to well-documented criminal actions to kidnap and "deprogram" them. I was a little amused how JP inserted the word currently and then qualified it in the edit summary as grammar. The judicial and academic investigations go back to 1989 so the group has been found "safe" since then so I think "currently" is pretty subjective. True, we are safe currently too but not just currently. Now as for a troubled past, I think that states that all the past was troubled which is not the case. There were troubles but they were not spread throughout the movement. I think the rest of what I changed speaks for itself. --Cognomen2 01:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Cognomen2: It is inaccurate to say that in the early seventies the only thing unconventional sexually about the family was that there wasn't any sex going on except for those who were married. It was broadly known in the early days that Berg had a sexual relationship with Maria as represented as the "New Church" while his original wife and mother of his biological children, Jane was humiliated before those present and represented as the "Old Church". Berg's eldest daughter Deborah Davis wrote a book about his having molested her younger sister prior to starting the COG and that he continued an incestuous relationship with her within the family as well as having a number of women whom he referred to as wives, specially. This was known on a less broad base at first and then became widespread doctrine. It should be noted that the introduction to child molestation came from Berg and Maria via a child Maria had from a "fish" (male John or trick) in Tenerife. TFI can't turn in their child molesters or they would cease to exist, or administration would come from behind bars because Maria would have to turn herself in. This can all be verified through TFI/TF/COG literature from the past. - Warheit
- Who the hell is JP? The addition of "currently" IS grammatical--the sentence is contrasting the past with today. You can't contrast "a troubled past" (oops, I'm sorry, "troubles in the past") with the same past. And another thing, what is with all this weasely politican language? Why is the Family honest about FFing, while you people are trying to pretend it was sexual attraction and 'relationships'? And why can't you understand how most people MIGHT see it as a radical form of witnessing? Is this in keeping with presenting the facts and letting readers make up their minds? ThePedanticPrick 02:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't remember any guidelines restricting harsh discipline in 1988. I do remember restrictions being placed after the judgement of Justice Ward. Since the early 1990s were known for Victor Programs and silence restriction, it seems dishonest to say that excessive discipline was banned in 1988. It would also be nice to know what the Family's current policy on corporal punishment is. ThePedanticPrick 14:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- ThePedanticPrick - From my understanding of the published Discipline Guidelines that accompanies the Charter, corporal punishment is considered a last resort in child training methods, and is subject to strict controls to disallow any excess or abuse. Family educational publications have given lots of ideas to parents and teachers on how to motivate and train their children without the need for physical discipline. --Details2 11:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Insults and constant reverts
Seems ThePedanticPrick should be pulled up for his comments on his edit summary of 01:49, 15 July 2005. Very much against Wikipedia policy! --Cognomen2 04:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I apologize for my language. I was in a bit of a bad mood last night, but that's no excuse. On a related topic, could we all agree to stop reverting the article everytime someone adds something we don't agree with? I know I've been guilty of this myself, but I think we all know how it feels when your contributions are arbitrarily tossed aside with no discussion or attempt at mediation. Last night, I added one sentence, and Cognomen reverted the article with a note about not "writing the whole article into the intro" which seemed strange, since, he and the pro-COG editors have added more to the first two paragraphs than I have. It's natural to feel like an article belongs to you after you've put a lot of work into it, but trying to work with the other contributors is not only the best solution, it's the what Wikipedia requires. There is something called the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, which seems to demonstrate that reverting is meant for drastic situations only. ThePedanticPrick 16:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- I was upset at your remarks and I still am. I provisionally accept your apology but you are on notice that I and I am sure others here will not tolerate it. I have had you use equally disparaging language before on me before so please refrain from it in future. I was satisfied with an earlier short introductory paragraph that you had written (or at least edited) but now this introduction has balooned to 3 or 4 times the size which I find unnecessary. If you are going to broach the Ricky Rodriguez issue you will also have to state that he was an exmember, angry and violent, who killed a woman half his size and made a sick video describing how he was going to torture her first. I am sick and tired of reading stuff that casts a murderer as a martyr. If you knew the victim you would also know that she was not an abuser. So I am removing the reference to him again in the introduction as there is plenty about it in the article.--Cognomen2 20:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why was the RR mention removed from the intro? It was indeed among the most important events in the history of the group, and one which generated enormous media attention. The sentence that had been in there seemed NPOV and concise. The group was the focus of media attention in 2005 due to the January 2005 murder-suicide of the group-leader's son, Ricky Rodriguez. The details, of course, appear later. Obviously anyone who commits murder is angry and violent. -Willmcw 21:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support, Willmcw. The truthfulness and lack of POV in that sentence seems very obvious to me, but I'll give cognomen some more time to explain, just in case. ThePedanticPrick 22:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Why was the RR mention removed from the intro? It was indeed among the most important events in the history of the group, and one which generated enormous media attention. The sentence that had been in there seemed NPOV and concise. The group was the focus of media attention in 2005 due to the January 2005 murder-suicide of the group-leader's son, Ricky Rodriguez. The details, of course, appear later. Obviously anyone who commits murder is angry and violent. -Willmcw 21:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I was upset at your remarks and I still am. I provisionally accept your apology but you are on notice that I and I am sure others here will not tolerate it. I have had you use equally disparaging language before on me before so please refrain from it in future. I was satisfied with an earlier short introductory paragraph that you had written (or at least edited) but now this introduction has balooned to 3 or 4 times the size which I find unnecessary. If you are going to broach the Ricky Rodriguez issue you will also have to state that he was an exmember, angry and violent, who killed a woman half his size and made a sick video describing how he was going to torture her first. I am sick and tired of reading stuff that casts a murderer as a martyr. If you knew the victim you would also know that she was not an abuser. So I am removing the reference to him again in the introduction as there is plenty about it in the article.--Cognomen2 20:20, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Because it lacks context. The way it reads it sounds like Ricky Rodriguez was still in the group and not out and an active campaigner against it for several years. His actions were aberrant and do not define the group. Therefore they do not warrant being in the introduction. IMO. --Cognomen2 22:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Rodriguez was not just any former member, and his murderous crusade was directly related to the group. He may have been an ex-member, but he had been conspicuously raised as a member for most of his life. Of course he's an aberration. The sentence does not say, nor imply, that this is typical behavior. It'd be possible to add a phrase to denote the surprise, shock and consternation expressed by the group. The January 2005 murder-suicide of the leaders' son Ricky Rodriguez (who had recently left the group) shocked and surprised members, and led to considerable media attention. That includes his status as an ex-member and the response of the group. Any thoughts? -Willmcw 22:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- It's true that RR wasn't just any "former member," and he definitely deserves significant mention in the article, but it seems that it's off balance to highlight him in the intro and not hightlight other also very significant periods/personalities/incidents or whatever in Family history. It's not that the sentence itself about RR was POV. As mentioned I thought it was quite NPOV, but including it without a balance of other significant points in the group's history in my opinion makes the intro as a whole POV. But you can't put everything in the intro.--Mindsports 23:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- One sentence at the end of the intro is not really "highlighting". After Berg himself Rodriguez is the most famous person involved with the group, and the murder-suicide was certainly the most famous thing that happened to the group in the last ten years. There isn't room for everything, but there is room for the most notable things, and this qualifies. Other significant periods/personalities/incidents which have received equal press attention should also be included, but I doubt that anything else is even close. -Willmcw 23:23, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- PS: The Ricky Rodriguez links were coming up red, so I copy-and-pasted together a short biography from other articles. It is obviously quite rough and any help would be appreciated. -Willmcw 23:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Willmcw I can live with the sentence you proposed. Thanks for being an objective party in this. As for the links, there is an external link at [6]--Cognomen2 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've added it. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:47, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with the sentence, generally, but I think we should REMOVE the word "recent" and change it to "several years earlier". I think it needs to be made clear that RR was disassociated from the movement when this took place. --Details2 12:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Willmcw I can live with the sentence you proposed. Thanks for being an objective party in this. As for the links, there is an external link at [6]--Cognomen2 23:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- You have a point Willmcw. I'm okay with adding that back in. One other comment though; I don't know that "press attention" is the only qualification for a significant period/personality/incident in the group's history--or in anyone's history. I'm sure there are quite a number of changes or incidents over the past years that would qualify as highly influential, especially from a viewpoint other than that of the not necessarily always NPOV media. I wouldn't want to clutter the intro and essentially make it into the article itself, but, like you said, there is room for the most notable things. I guess we should look into adding them in.(I was still typing this out when yours and Cognomen's comments came in.)--Mindsports 23:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- since there are so many comments here (in the discussion) about the importance of RR, as the "son of the leader", shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that his sister, Techi, remains in the movement and does not express any of the complaints that Ricky made? --Details2 12:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- She, and her attitude towards her upbringing are mentioned elsewhere in the article. ThePedanticPrick 14:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- since there are so many comments here (in the discussion) about the importance of RR, as the "son of the leader", shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that his sister, Techi, remains in the movement and does not express any of the complaints that Ricky made? --Details2 12:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Can everyone explain WHY before they revert a suggested edit? I did a small change in the 1982 section which I explained, but this was then reverted, and I can't see any explanation by who did it. --Details2 12:10, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, Details. I don't know which change you're referring to, but I'd be happy to discuss it further if you tell me which one it was. I outlined the sentences I disagreed with above in the section 'Obfuscations, prevarications, etc', but I didn't revert any of those, I just modified them and added some more facts. (Actually, I think I did one revert that got re-reverted, so I went with the edit approach) ThePedanticPrick 14:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- The paragraph I am referring to is the one you added. I had done a suggested revision to keep the info you added but in condensed format. I suggest we cut this down to simply a list - something like, "Serious allegations have been made against Berg by his daughter Deborah, grand-daughter Mene... [etc... all of those you name, listed like that]" then: "However none of these allegations were ever pursued in court." - This is somewhat for the sake of brevity, and also to keep the page focused on its main subject - which is COG. --Details2 21:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fine, if you take out that bit about "none of these allegations were ever pursued in court", which implies that none of the accusers ever swore under oath that their testimony was true (see Merry Berg's testimony in the Ward case) ThePedanticPrick 16:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- I made the change as suggested . --Details2 22:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Fine, if you take out that bit about "none of these allegations were ever pursued in court", which implies that none of the accusers ever swore under oath that their testimony was true (see Merry Berg's testimony in the Ward case) ThePedanticPrick 16:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
- The paragraph I am referring to is the one you added. I had done a suggested revision to keep the info you added but in condensed format. I suggest we cut this down to simply a list - something like, "Serious allegations have been made against Berg by his daughter Deborah, grand-daughter Mene... [etc... all of those you name, listed like that]" then: "However none of these allegations were ever pursued in court." - This is somewhat for the sake of brevity, and also to keep the page focused on its main subject - which is COG. --Details2 21:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Beliefs and Recent Teachings
A week or two ago, I suggested moving Beliefs to a new article because it was too long. Now someone has moved Recent Teachings to the top of the article and effectively recreated the same problem, which was more or less fixed. Can we either move this section completely, or trim it down? ThePedanticPrick 16:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes I think the Recent Teachings section could be moved back down where it was, don't know who moved it up or why.Audiofree
- I don't know who moved it, but I agree with it being up there. As I've written elsewhere, if this is an article about a religious movement then the religious beliefs should feature early on. --Details2 12:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Former members
- I was just looking over the article and it's different sections at present and was thinking that with all the controversy about the group it may be helpful to create and include a new section listing names and info of different of those who have so vocally and actively worked against the Family through the years. Or maybe the present "Former members" section could be expanded to include such. Sometimes it helps give a little more balance and perspective to know somewhat of who it is that's fighting against someone else. What do you think?--Mindsports 23:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
- There's a "Notable members (past and present)" that could be broadedned to deal with all members, past or present, committed or opposed. -Willmcw 23:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I think notable "apostates" can be included too Relevant information that is important to assess their credibility with regards to their testimonies about the Family can be included, but please refrain from making ad hominem attacks on them. (I have seen baseless, serious ad hominem attacks on apostates of NRMs, incl. me, quite often and I am sick and tired of them). Andries 11:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree in general it would be helpful to know who actively opposes the movement, but I also agree not to get too personal, unless it is directly relevant to their activities.--Details2 13:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- As apostate is primarily a religious term, I would suggest coming up with a different one, something along the lines of "critic", "detractor", "adversary", maybe even "opponent". Those last two might be a bit strong -- I can't think of a good NPOV one at the moment. ThePedanticPrick 14:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- Critical former members is a good alternative for "apostates", I believe. Andries 17:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Lies by people with college degrees
Lilliston says, "there is no report of his having been actively molested or abused by adults". Actually, Lil, there aren't just reports, there are photos! This man is either stupid or a liar, and I don't see why his patently false statements should be included in the article. Since deletions tend to make people (myself included) cranky, I'll wait for supporters of this "expert" to weigh in before I edit. ThePedanticPrick 05:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Attribution for Family's refusal to report child-abusers
Here's a brief quote concerning the Family's policy on reporting child-molesters: " Concerning the issue of reporting alleged offenses to the authorities, we do not consider it within the jurisdiction of The Family as a religious entity (aka “church”) to undertake the prosecution of members nor is undertaken by any church we know of. The ultimate decision as to whether to report such alleged offenses to the authorities lies entirely with the parents, who are ultimately responsible for the well-being of their child." [7]
- Also, it is interesting to note that members who do want to report child abuse to civil authorities, must first resign from The Family. Given that these people have their entire lives tied up with the group, it seems that at the very least, this policy would discourage people from reporting crimes against children. Without editorializing in the main article, I think keeping this information available is important for an outsider to understand the climate that the abuse was allowed to exist in, and that possiblity of a continued conspiracy of silence and non-reporting of serious criminal behavior. Indian Joe 22:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Since there is no abuse in the Family today, a fact that the Pedantic Prick and others acknowledge, and that Charter provision you allude has only been in effect for the last few years, then I tend to think that the issue is moot. Also, it is not resign from the Family, if I recall correctly, but just move from CM status. --Cognomen2 23:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have never acknowledged that "there is no abuse in the Family today", a claim which is obviously unprovable and likely false! And I'm appalled that a parent thinks child-abuse prevention is "moot". You should be ashamed of yourself! ThePedanticPrick 00:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen2, your recollection of the Family's policy on what happens to members to members who report child abuse to law enforcement authorities and choose to comply with mandatory reporting laws is incorrect. It is true that the Family's amendments to the Rights of Children section of its charter requires those who pursue any legal action against someone who has been excommunicated for child abuse to leave the Family altogether or move to a lower committment membership status. However, the amendments to the Right of Redress section of the charter require those who take any legal action against a current member to leave the Family altogether and there is no option to move to a lower committment membership status. The amendments even quote Bible verses to support the position that taking a "sister or brother" to the law is wrong and unscriptural. These policies (formally codified in the 2003 amendments to the charter but standard policy and practice long before then) have been extraordinarily successful in protecting child molesters from prosecution. No other legitimate religious organization that I know has this code of silence type of policy which punishes members for reporting crimes. Not surprisingly, the Family has never reported a single case of child abuse to law enforcement authorities. In the United States, about 35% of child abuse crimes are reported to law enforcement agencies. In the Family, the rate is 0%. Thus, the Family is a very safe environment for child molesters. They believe, as the Family's spokespersons constantly remind us, that not a single person has ever been convicted of abusing a child in the Family. They know that the worst thing that will happen to them is to be kicked out and and that no one in the Family will ever report them to a law enforcement agency, testify against them or otherwise become involved in any legal action against them. There have been many cases where the Family's policy of only excommunicating child molesters has resulted in more children being sexually and physically abused. For example, I was recently informed of the case of a British citizen in Nepal whom the Family excommunicated for sexually abusing children but did not report to law enforcement. AFter leaving the Family, he became a priest and ran an orphanage where many children were sexually abused. Someone reported it and he is now serving a very long prison sentence. If the Family had reported him to law enforcement authorities when they first knew about his crimes, they could have prevented hundreds of children from being sexually and physically abused. Manicmoe 02:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Manicmoe, can you name names here? If not then it seems this story is most likely very thin on fact. What type of priest? If he was a Catholic priest then he must have been out of the Family a long time. And PedanticPrick, may I quote you "considering the The Family is now regarded as a safe environment for children," You can't have it both ways. And I have not witnessed anything resembling CA so to me it is moot. Shame on you for implying I am a delinquent parent. If you don't know who you are referring to or the particular environment I live in then I think you ought to keep your long nose out of my personal business. Perhaps you should concern yourself with society in general where it is a problem. Since you style yourself as a pedant I assume you did so because you teach and not the other less flattering definitions of the word. Is it a problem in your school? Then perhaps you should focus your attention there.--Cognomen2 03:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- There's a difference between people regarding the Family as a safe environment and there being no abuse! No one can legitimately claim that there is NO abuse in The Family, because it's impossible to know that for certain. The fact that you have not personally witnessed what you consider abuse does not give you the right to be flippant about policies that should be in place to prevent child abuse and facilitate justice when it occurs. ThePedanticPrick 05:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- My whole issue with the original wording was that it is misleading, insinuating widespread abuse is currently rampant (and therefore the COG is a very unsafe environment--untrue) and forbidden to be reported (untrue--the COG Charter clearly empowers members and limits leadership, so local issues are in local members' hands, not a bureacracy's). Making attempted re-edit to remove the "When did you stop beating your wife (and not reporting it)?" aspect.--Kibbitzer 07:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Kibbitzer, your edit labelled "Clarification as per discussion." removed the fact that the Family does not report child abuse to law enforcement agencies and does not make it clear that the Family's December 1988 child abuse excommunication policy was not retroactive and did not apply to those who abused children before December 1988. The way you've written it falsely implies that the Family has a policy to excommunicate all child abusers when in fact its policy is only to excommunicate those found to have abused after December 1988. Members of the Family have abused children and the Family has admitted that this happened. When asked the question, "When did you stop abusing your children?" the Family's spokespersons have responded at great length and provided contradictory answers about when the Family banned adult-child sexual contact (in some statements they have said it was never allowed and in others they have claimed it was banned in 1978, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 or 1989.). Despite Claire Borowik's January 2005 statement that adult-child sexual contact was banned and made an excommunicable offense in 1986, most of the contributors here (even those whose contributions have been labelled "pro-COG") have agreed that the Family did not implement a policy to excommunicate child abusers until December 1988 and that this policy was not retroactive. The fact that the policy is not retroactive is a significant fact. Yes, the Family's policies allow those who move to a lower committment membership status to report and take legal action against someone whom the Family has excommunicated for child abuse and allows those who leave the Family entirely to report alleged child abuse by and take legal action against a current member. Thus, it is very clear that the Family does not (and there is no evidence that it ever has) report child abuse to law enforcement authorities because its rules forbid CM/FD members from taking any legal action against someone excommunicated for abuse and also forbid members of any membership status from taking any legal action against a current member. Thus, your edit didn't clarify anything at all and should be reverted. I'm sure you wish (as we all do) that the Family would excommunicate all child abusers in its ranks(and not just those who abused children after December 1988) and that it would report child abuse to law enforcement policies and encourage its members to immediately report suspected child abuse to law enforcement rather than requiring them to leave the Family or change their membership status, but we can only report the facts and not leave them out just because some people (like me) might interepret them as reflecting very negatively on the Family's concern for the welfare of its children and the extraordinary policies it has implemented to protect child abusers. I didn't see anything in the introduction about rampant abuse still occurring and the Family not being a safe places for children. In fact, there is a sentence (which I disagree with but have left alone because other contributors have come to a compromise or agreement on its wording) stating that " a number of judicial and academic investigations in the 1990s found the Family to be a safe environment for children." Cognomen2, my source about the British citizen and former member currently imprisoned in Nepal for child abuse did not provide the person's name. However, I have a couple possible names I found in public documents and newspaper articles but I will not post them until I verify they are correct (which might take awhile). It should be noted that my source is a current member of the Family who has been in the group for over 25 years and brought the case to my attention to defend the Family and its child abuse policies. He thought the fact the the Family kicked this guy was evidence that the Family does get rid of child abusers. Once he realized how the failure to report the child abuse to law enforcement agencies resulted in the abuse of so many more children, he (quite understandbly) didn't want to talk about it anymore and thus I didn't get additional information such as the name of the person in question. But I will find out all the details eventually. Manicmoe 08:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Manicmoe, can you name names here? If not then it seems this story is most likely very thin on fact. What type of priest? If he was a Catholic priest then he must have been out of the Family a long time. And PedanticPrick, may I quote you "considering the The Family is now regarded as a safe environment for children," You can't have it both ways. And I have not witnessed anything resembling CA so to me it is moot. Shame on you for implying I am a delinquent parent. If you don't know who you are referring to or the particular environment I live in then I think you ought to keep your long nose out of my personal business. Perhaps you should concern yourself with society in general where it is a problem. Since you style yourself as a pedant I assume you did so because you teach and not the other less flattering definitions of the word. Is it a problem in your school? Then perhaps you should focus your attention there.--Cognomen2 03:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen2, your recollection of the Family's policy on what happens to members to members who report child abuse to law enforcement authorities and choose to comply with mandatory reporting laws is incorrect. It is true that the Family's amendments to the Rights of Children section of its charter requires those who pursue any legal action against someone who has been excommunicated for child abuse to leave the Family altogether or move to a lower committment membership status. However, the amendments to the Right of Redress section of the charter require those who take any legal action against a current member to leave the Family altogether and there is no option to move to a lower committment membership status. The amendments even quote Bible verses to support the position that taking a "sister or brother" to the law is wrong and unscriptural. These policies (formally codified in the 2003 amendments to the charter but standard policy and practice long before then) have been extraordinarily successful in protecting child molesters from prosecution. No other legitimate religious organization that I know has this code of silence type of policy which punishes members for reporting crimes. Not surprisingly, the Family has never reported a single case of child abuse to law enforcement authorities. In the United States, about 35% of child abuse crimes are reported to law enforcement agencies. In the Family, the rate is 0%. Thus, the Family is a very safe environment for child molesters. They believe, as the Family's spokespersons constantly remind us, that not a single person has ever been convicted of abusing a child in the Family. They know that the worst thing that will happen to them is to be kicked out and and that no one in the Family will ever report them to a law enforcement agency, testify against them or otherwise become involved in any legal action against them. There have been many cases where the Family's policy of only excommunicating child molesters has resulted in more children being sexually and physically abused. For example, I was recently informed of the case of a British citizen in Nepal whom the Family excommunicated for sexually abusing children but did not report to law enforcement. AFter leaving the Family, he became a priest and ran an orphanage where many children were sexually abused. Someone reported it and he is now serving a very long prison sentence. If the Family had reported him to law enforcement authorities when they first knew about his crimes, they could have prevented hundreds of children from being sexually and physically abused. Manicmoe 02:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have never acknowledged that "there is no abuse in the Family today", a claim which is obviously unprovable and likely false! And I'm appalled that a parent thinks child-abuse prevention is "moot". You should be ashamed of yourself! ThePedanticPrick 00:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- Since there is no abuse in the Family today, a fact that the Pedantic Prick and others acknowledge, and that Charter provision you allude has only been in effect for the last few years, then I tend to think that the issue is moot. Also, it is not resign from the Family, if I recall correctly, but just move from CM status. --Cognomen2 23:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Also, it is interesting to note that members who do want to report child abuse to civil authorities, must first resign from The Family. Given that these people have their entire lives tied up with the group, it seems that at the very least, this policy would discourage people from reporting crimes against children. Without editorializing in the main article, I think keeping this information available is important for an outsider to understand the climate that the abuse was allowed to exist in, and that possiblity of a continued conspiracy of silence and non-reporting of serious criminal behavior. Indian Joe 22:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Manicmoe: My edit stated the fact that "since 1988 [this was the date listed prior to my edit] any such infractions are grounds for immediate excommunication from Family membership." (As you mentioned, the date should be pinned down.) The previous edit insinuated that abuse is currently rampant, and that this current rampant abuse is not reported. That drift needed to be corrected. Your lengthy edit reinstated a degree of that insinuation and for that reason I do not agree with it. Also, the introduction of this article is not the place for presenting this issue. There are designated sections in the article for (both sides of) such issues (i.e., "Criticism"). Our interest, I'm sure, is that the article attain a standard worthy of Wikipedia. Currently it's rather far from it, IMHO.
- Putting things in perspective, the raids on COG communities in Argentina, France, Australia, and Spain were all AFTER "1978, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 or 1989". They were perpetrated by anti-cult organizations aided by some ex-members, who "sicced" the authorities and press on the COG churches/homes, resulting in HUNDREDS of innocent and unabused children (of all ages, from babies to teens) being emotionally, physically, and sexually abused ("examined") by misguided authorities. I don't hear (retroactive) objections from COG critics here about these proven atrocities (kidnapping, false reporting, child abuse, etc.), which were reported and documented worldwide. In each country it was the judicial system that found there were no grounds for such actions and had the children returned to their parents, and any incarcerated adults released (and in some cases substantial compensation was paid by government agencies). Why are you not demanding the perpetrators of these proven crimes be brought to justice?
- Is it any wonder the COG (or any church subjected to such opposition) tend to be protective of their privacy, security, and members (and especially their children)? Postings such as this by ThePedanticPrick, show an ominous "inciteful" attitude: "Trying to protect your wife and children from these by posting on WikiPedia is a fool's errand. The negative opinion and unwanted attention will never go away. ... you DO NOT hold the right not to be ridiculed for your beliefs, not even in today's "enlightened climate." ... it IS your life and that of your family that are at stake. [Emphasis added.] You can only protect them from negative opinion by removing your affiliation with the subject of that negative opinion -- the Family." Such an advocate of freedom from your chosen religion ... or else. He should heed his own words: "You should be ashamed of yourself!"
- Using Wikipedia to attempt to "hot line the COG" is inappropriate. It makes me wonder how much of this influence contributed to inciting murder. In the above words of Indian Joe, was there a "possiblity of a continued conspiracy of silence and non-reporting of serious criminal behavior"? The site he references hosted graphic violent threats by Ricky Rodriguez (since removed), yet little is said here about that.--Kibbitzer 15:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Kibbitzer, almost everything in your response is completely irrelevant to the facts that you object to being stated. Wikipedia is about facts and not the insinuations that exist in your mind. My edit simply states the facts about the Family's "stringent" polcies regarding child abuse, nothing more and nothing less. It has been established as fact that the Family's December 1988 child abuse excommunication policy was not retroactive. The Family's spokespersons have publically stated many times that they do not report alleged child abuse to law enforcement authorities and that they believe only the victim or the victim's parents have the responsibility to do so. The Family's charter specifies the cirumstances under which individual members are allowed to report child abuse to law enforcement authorities or take other legal action against alleged abusers: if the allged abuser is a current member, the individual who reports child abuse or takes any other legal action against the alleged abuser is required to leave the Family until the matter is resolved; if the alleged abuser is has been excommunicated for child abuse, the individual who reports the alleged abuse to a law enforcement agency or takes any other legal action against the alleged abuser also has the option of moving to a lower committment membership status until the matter is resolved. If you have any evidence that the December 1988 policy was retroactive and applied to an act of child abuse committed before December 1988, then please present that evidence. If you have evidence that the Family's Charter and the amendments to it that have been distributed to thousands of its members are not actually the policy of the Family, never have been, or don't exist, then please also present that evidence. Manicmoe 19:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Parents in the Family have the legal and moral responsibility for their children. This includes whatever decisions are essential to the child's welfare, including such matters as provision of health care, adequate education, keeping them safe and so on. This is made clear in the Charter - I won't add all the references here but I can if you question this. Although Family members live communally, the parental responsibilities are those of parents anywhere else in society. And thus the parents have the same difficult choices to make. In the unlikely - but possible - scenario that a parent believed their child/teen to have been abused, they would have to make the judgement call as to what is in the child's best interests. Now that's a tough one, because even sometimes social workers will advise them to let it pass as the process of the investigation can be as traumatic emotionally and psychologically as whatever may have happened. From what I understand, the amendment was designed to help ensure that Family parents knew that they could report to authorities if that's what they felt they should do. As a parent, you put your child first. If someone has a severely handicapped child and they can't meet their needs in a communal home, they'll move. If their teens want to leave the Family, often the parents will move to their home country to help them get integrated. There are lots of scenarios that parents face and hard choices. And again, this is what parents everywhere face. If their kid is being bullied at school to the point they're depressed, what do they do? Change school? Maybe there's no other school nearby. So then change their job, move? Tough decisions. Parenting is tough. I don't like the tone of this discussion that makes out that there is some hidden agenda in the Charter or that Family parents are somehow controlled. Family members are individuals who make their own choices. Family parents should act in the best interests of their children. The Charter is there as the framework and if someone isn't comfortable with it or if it doesn't meet the needs of their personal family, then they're welcome to move on. They can move to another membership status or they can leave entirely. --Details2 20:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Kibbitzer: Re: Your point above, about those who contributed to the raids on the Family and thus the suffering of the children, I agree that there needs to be some mention that nowhere (that I know of) have these people been called to account. Maybe we need to write up a paragraph somewhere about this? --Details2 20:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
- Details2: OK ... done. Was delayed by trying to keep up with Manicmoe's appearing and disappearing "nots." Still trying to grok how the mention of such things is "irrelevant"...--Kibbitzer 08:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Kibbitzer: Re: Your point above, about those who contributed to the raids on the Family and thus the suffering of the children, I agree that there needs to be some mention that nowhere (that I know of) have these people been called to account. Maybe we need to write up a paragraph somewhere about this? --Details2 20:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I was never in The Family, though I've been associated with members and ex-members on a full-time basis for 26 years. Something I would like explained, if possible, is the rule regarding having to leave The Family in order to report child abuse to authorities you must leave the group. This organization has stated in interviews that they value their children, and protect them. Why then would they want to make it difficult to get an abuser out of the general population? It is as if someone saw a person setting fire to the home, resulting in injury to the occupants next door, but would have to move out of their own home in order to report the crime. If the crime is not reporter, the criminal just continues to set fires. The Family does claim to ex-communicate child abusers, but doesn't that just send them into the general population where they will most likely continue abusing innocent children? This policy seems to me, very similar to the failed policy of the Catholic Church who would just send an abuser to another parish, where new children would be victimized. At any rate, I am sincerely interested in the opinion of the "pro-COG" editors on this issue. Indian Joe 13:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Indian Joe: I have recently questioned this particular point in the policy regarding of how to handle abuse complaints and have been told that it is under review and will most likely be amended or dropped. It was announced to the Family that the Charter is presently going through a revision and should be updated and republished later this year, incorporating amendments from the past seven years, as well as the changes that have taken place in the structure of the TFI. So we will see what this new edition has to say about this. In my above comments, I stated that to me the subject was moot, because I have not witnessed CA in the Family and that critics of the Family such as Thorwald stated that he didn't believe there was abuse in the Family today, and ThePendanticPrick acknowledged that the TFI has been found to be a safe environment for kids. However, I do think that the policy itself as it currently stands should be reconsidered.--Cognomen2 23:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen2: Thank you for your reply. I am glad to hear that this policy is under review. I do think that people in the mainstream would find it questionable and objectionable. I realize that The Family does not exist to please the status quo, but given that they do live by donations provided by the general public, this type of concern should be addressed. Indian Joe 02:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Cognomen2: I do not understand how you consider TFI being a safe environment for kids. My concerns are the teaching of the LJR (Loving Jesus Revolution) and the sexualization of God to children. Letters,to site just one, like #3029JNR: Loving Jesus Part 3-JETTS show the nature of TFI to have a hidden teaching of an edgy doctrine discussed here in quotations. This letter includes Maria warning youth to be careful what they say around outsiders and younger children. Why would it be necessary to be careful around outsiders if there was not an element of something that in some places could constitute abuse? I could quote the parts of that letter here, except they are "X" rated and perhaps not allowed in Wikipedia.
- >> To whoever wrote the last comment. I don't know where you live, but in THIS part of the world, sexually explicit material is available at every newstand and bookshop. Children are given fairly explicit sexual education in school, including choices on contraception, sexual orientation and so on, way before even puberty. Regular TV channels show nudity and explicit sexual activity from the so-called watershed time of 9 pm, but there is plenty of implicit sex, outside marriage and across any sort of moral decency, in the popular soaps that are on, and watched, by all ages. Most teenagers in this country have internet access and we all know what a bunch of perversion can be found there. Magazines DESIGNED and AIMED for teenagers extol sexual behaviour, including multiple partners, experiments with same sex, and detailed descriptions of how to find sexual satisfaction, use contraceptives for so-called safe sex, etc. So... that's the world today, whether we like it or not. According to what you're insinuating here, every child living in a household whose father reads Playboy or whose teen sister reads Cosmo or whose mother watches soaps could be in an abusive situation. The fact that a religious community has material in its library that talks about sex no more convicts them of an "unsafe environment" than the majority of households in the western world. Let's get real!! --Details2 11:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Details2: Yes. Let's get "'bold'" real. Comparing TFI to mainstream society and its norms is equivalent to NAMBLA comparing themselves to mainstream society and its norms. It is solely spin and not common sense that equates or tones down what is taught to children in TFI to mainstream society. To make this point, if necessary, I will gladly put in links to the family's own publications.
Analysis of Kibbitzer's extreme POV
I realize that it can often be difficult for anyone to see the world or certain situations from another's perspective. For a person who leads a drastically different lifestyle and gathers information from different sources, as Family members do, this must be extra difficult. For this reason, I'd like to explain to Kibbitzer why his edits of Aug.1-2 are unacceptable and offensive to many people, not just certain "anti-Family editors"
1. Attacking mainstream Christianity: 'It was one thing to preach the Gospel and do acts of kindness to "win the lost", but another thing to add sex to the equation, using it to demonstrate God's love through unconditional love and affection.' This shows blatant disrespect for the beliefs of mainstream Christians regarding extra-marital sexuality, implicitly accusing them of being unloving and uncaring because they are non-promiscuous.
2. Speculation as to the motives of cult-detractors: "...to force members from their chosen faith) aided by apostates, embarked on a program of intense lobbying...", "others persist in their endeavours to curtail the rights of individuals to follow their freely chosen beliefs." No one knows for certain the motives of cult-detractors, so this suggestion is unencyclopedic, or, at the very least, needs to be reframed along the lines of "The Family claims it is being persecuted because of its religion". It is not illegal or immoral for concerned citizens to report suspected crimes to law-enforcement agencies.
3. Slander of law-enforcement agencies and doctors: "resulting in hundreds of the group's children (of all ages, from babies to teens) being emotionally, physically, and sexually abused ("examined") by misguided authorities." A doctor's examination is not sexual abuse. To claim otherwise is libelous against the doctors who performed any such examination. If you have proof that doctors, police, or social workers acted inappropriately, please cite it.
4. Lies about Ricky Rodriguez: "He had previously posted graphic threats of violence on ex-member sites, yet these were not reported to authorities." Ricky never made any graphic threats, so there was no need to remove them.
5. Slandering of ex-member sites. "However, the pre-murder video he recorded continues to be highlighted there" One link in normal-size font on the home page of MovingOn.org does not amount to "highlighting," and so what if it did? People are interested in the video as a result of the news coverage; no one accuses CNN of endorsing terrorism when it airs Bin Laden's videos.
I hope this helps. ThePedanticPrick 21:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is what I wrote (in context), for the record (since it keeps being censored):
As it grew and expanded around the world, so did its message—salvation, Millenarianism, spiritual revolution against the outside world that they called "the System"—and resultant controversy. But it was the radical witnessing method called "Flirty Fishing"—introduced in 1974—which highlighted the growing schism between the Children of God and their fellow Christians. It was one thing to preach the Gospel and do acts of kindness to "win the lost", but another thing to add sex to the equation, using it to demonstrate God's love through unconditional love and affection. The practice was discontinued in 1987 in favor of more traditional methods of evangelism. Their founder and prophetic leader, David Berg, communicated with his followers via Mo-letters—letters of instruction and counsel on a myriad of spiritual and practical subjects—until his death in late 1994. After his death, Karen Zerby became the leader of the Family.
{Comment on "attacking mainstream Christianity": Your prejudiced mindset tends to cloud your judgement. You are reading things into the above text that is not there. Points made: The early COG did actively preach the Gospel, and they also had some outreach of ministering aid and comfort to the youth (hippies). The introduction of flirty fishing added a new dimension to THEIR outreach. It certainly widened the schism between the COG and the mainstream churches. They had a touchy relationship already, but this widened the rift. These explanations were certainly in order considering the previous edit with the flippant POV injection of the word "intercourse" used in a demeaning manner--which I now see has been removed.}
In the early 1990s anti-cult organizations (having shed deprogramming as a means to force members from their chosen faith) aided by apostates, embarked on a program of intense lobbying, finally persuading the authorities (accompanied by the press) to raid Children of God churches in Argentina, France, Australia, and Spain, resulting in hundreds of the group's children (of all ages, from babies to teens) being emotionally, physically, and sexually abused ("examined") by misguided authorities. In each country it was the judicial system that found there were no grounds for such actions and had the children returned to their parents, and any incarcerated adults released (and in some cases substantial compensation was paid by government agencies). Some ex-members later wrote partial apologies for their participation, but others persist in their endeavours to curtail the rights of individuals to follow their freely chosen beliefs.
{Comment on "speculation as to the motives of detractors": Detractors (like religious zealots) are quite vocal as to why they are against something. They certainly don't keep it a secret. If an upset parent says to his or her of-legal-age child who dropped out to join a group, "I'd rather see you on drugs than with this (or that) group; or the parents have the young person committed to a mental institution; or has him or her kidnapped from his or her chosen lifestyle or group and deprogrammed, it's usually done with pretty clearcut motives. Perhaps I'm not following your point very well. But censoring out an important part of COG history [or perhaps you could say the anti-cult movement's] history doesn't help.}
The group’s liberal sexuality, as well as some of their former disciplinary practices, have led to allegations of abuse by some former members. Although a number of judicial and academic investigations in the 1990s found the Family to be a safe environment for children, such investigations have also highlighted troubles in its past. Family leadership, admitting that some children were abused as a result of some of Berg's writings during the liberal period of the group's early history, created strict policies in the mid-1980s prohibiting excessive discipline or any sexual contact between adults and minors. Any member infringing on the rights of another member (child or adult) is subject to excommunication from Family membership. Critics say incidents of abuse are not reported to authorities, yet others contend that the group's policies allow for that, provided they pursue such actions outside of the church.
{Comment re: "Slander of law-enforcement agencies and doctors": Either you are grossly ignorant of the facts or very selective as to when you are concerned about children's welfare. If you haven't read accounts of the raids or testimonials of the young people who were taken away from their parents at gunpoint and put in institutions and "examined", then I encourage you to please do so. Are you saying law-enforcement agencies and doctors can do no wrong, or that those "culties got what they deserved?" It's not gallant of you to defend these child abusers. It's not gallant of you to berate others who hold different viewpoints regarding religion than you. It was you who went over the top lecturing a Cog/Family writer: "...it IS your life and that of your family that are at stake. You can only protect them from negative opinion by removing your affiliation with the subject of that negative opinion -- the Family." Is this the same guy who instructs: "For this reason, I'd like to explain to Kibbitzer why his edits of Aug.1-2 are unacceptable and offensive to many people." Oy vai. At least I can say you teach by example.}
The January 2005 murder of former member, Angela Smith, by the leader's son Ricky Rodriguez (who had also left the group several years earlier), and his subsequent suicide shocked both members and former members, and led to considerable media attention. He had previously posted graphic threats of violence on ex-member sites, yet these were not reported to authorities. Such postings were subsequently removed. However, the pre-murder video he recorded continues to be highlighted there.
{Comment on "lies about Ricky": Those were not lies.}
{Comment on "slandering of ex-member sites": Go there if you want to see real slander.}
Later.--Kibbitzer 10:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- This article is turning into a big mess, in my opinion. Whenever we seem to be finding middle ground, someone comes along and does major edits. I don't personally see what's wrong with what Kibbitzer changed. The analyis of what happened when the police raided the Family communities seems fair and accurate enough. It is a major event in the group's history, has been independently documented by reliable sources(see the Bainbridge Book "The Endtime Family" among other sources).
- There seems to be a persistent attempt by some editors on this site to paint the group in the most black terms. Nothing in life is all white or black. Most events surrounding a religious movement aren't just grey, they're multi-colored, as there isn't just the point of what happened, but there are the religious interpretations. There have repeated statements reflecting the very strong POV of what seem to be some former members. They keep insisting they "know" what Family members "think" and "say" but this is their POV.
- I know this won't happen, but we almost could do with going back to the drawing board.
- {For instance: Flirty fishing: Technique used by COG and FOL members from 1975 to 1987. Involved use of sexual attraction and sometimes sexual activity. Purpose according to Movement: To evangelise and win souls to Jesus. According to detractors: Money-making. Further references: ...
- With this style, the readers could make up their own minds. But that's wishful thinking. This seems to be more of an article for people to air their strongly held POVs than facts! --Details2 11:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Details2: I can understand that you would like to have the whole thing rewritten to cast a more favorable light on TFI but your statement that nothing is all black or white does not fit with regards to your description of FFing. Berg's letters, his language, Marias language and letters, letters such as "Make It Pay" "God's Whores", The King Arthur Series, and many many more, make it clear that FFing was prostitution with a sordid twist of Jesus being behind it all. I think if someone from NAMBLA said "Our detractors say we molest little boys but we say we show them love, nothing is black and white" that a minority of people, probably molesters themselves, would see it that way. I don't think the public gets a fair view of TFI since they don't have access here to read for themselves the full content of those letters and many others. Letters like #3029JNR- Loving Jesus Part 3-JETTS is but one letter that has statements showing that certain practices should not be revealed to outsiders. If TFI has nothing to hide, "Burn After Reading" letters would never have been necessary. Despite precautions, publications continue to leak from TFI as people jump ship. Until the family "secrets" are known and not denied, only then can true discussion occur about what TFI is, was or is to become. -Warheit
- Mr Warheit: Do you have a full and fair view of the decision made by the global corporations that run this world? Do you have any idea of the confidential matters that are discussed by the staff of your local hospital? Do you have a full and comprehensive information on the use of your tax dollars? Do you even have a little tiny say in what that money is used for? Every organisation has internal matters and external. Unless you are wishing to join the movement, why is the internal structure your business? if you have personally been harmed by your affiliation with the movement, I suggest you approach the appropriate legal agencies. The Catholic church has revised its policies over the years. The governmetn revises its policies and laws continously. Why is it so bad if the Family does the same? But it seems the Family can't please you and its critics. If it has problems and has published things it regrets and AGREES were not right, , and it corrects those problems and withdraws them, it is accused of hiding. If it doesn't correct the problems and doesn't withdraw those teachings, it will be accused of promoting the wrong thing. What on earth do you expect that organisation to do? --Details2 11:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Details2: One of several flaws in your argument is that the destruction of evidence did not coincide with later reforms in certain areas. Most if not all second generation former members of the Family who have participated in contributing to this article can remember being personally involved in the destruction of this evidence as children, have read the explanations of why the actions were carried out (and remember what they were told by the adults overseeing it), and can attest to the fact that it had almost everything to do with not wanting "the System" and police to find the materials and almost nothing to do with policies being changed. --Monger 15:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Monger: If literature contains images and text that the Family leadership decided were WRONG and they did not want their members to read or view any longer, what else were they supposed to do? Option 1) They leave the literature where it can be read. Option 2) They ask for it to be destroyed. But it seems you are alleging that AFTER the offending literature was destroyed, the policies were not changed? --Details2 09:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Details2: I am not writing about my local hospital or the worlds corporations here. I am writing concerning TFI. I am writing facts about TFI including that Maria the current leader of TFI partially initiated and participated in criminal acts of pedophilia and incest with children in TFI while advocating that it was all about "love". NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy "Love" Association) has similar views, except they don't advocate for incest as far as I know. These things disturb me far more than what corruption exists in the world at large. At least the world at large has outside watchdog associations with "bite" power when they cross over legal lines. In order to verify what I have written I will gladly provide links to family literature which are very clear and speak better than I can about it.
- I think that would be the best route to take anyway. You asked what I would expect the organization to do. For TFI to make a substantial change for the good I think outside neutral and professional intervention would be needed to make a clean sweep of reporting known pedophiles, including Maria, and that they would prepare and distribute reparations that would include therapy and financial assistance for those born in TFI who have left it and request assistance from that neutral officiating body. Since you mentioned the world at large, Watergate did not get cleaned up from the inside out. -Warheit
- So am i to understand that the purpose of this article, rather than being public service of information as part of an encyclopedia, is to precipitate "professional intervention" in a religious movement? --Details2 09:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Details2: You asked what I thought the organization needed to do. I answered that Watergate did not get cleaned up from the inside out. It is why I don't believe adequate change can occur within TFI if those changes are hammered out and/or approved by people involved in creating the problems/crimes. That was an answer to your personal question and information the public should know is provided via TF/TFI's own literature but not at TFI's sites. I also believe the public needs access to truth about TFI to be informed on what the group's history and current leadership is about. If this is an informational site, and TFI states it has cleaned up the past, and that is by denying much of its existence or asking questions to offset giving clear factual answers, then it will become a moderated PR platform for TFI rather than informational. Now let me ask you a point blank question and see if you can give an honest answer without a question. Did Maria, TFI's current top leader, ever participate in child molestation and incest of her son and molestation of other children? If you answer this with a question or avoid answering it clearly and concisely or you don't know, I will provide writings from TF that prove this did indeed happen.
- The answer is NO!--Cognomen2 00:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Cognomen2: You are either caught in a LIE here, or you never read the book of Davidito. Here is a quote from it where MARIA and David BERG were engaged in group sex, a "come-union" in which her son roamed around the room and, well, other things occurred:
In chapter 61, “Return to Madrid!”, when Davidito was 3 yrs. 2 mos. of age, Sara wrote:
1. One night after a real good dinner talk by Dad on the importance of sharing & how timidity is really just pride, Dad suggested we have a “come-union”. He set up a place for Maria & Timothy on the floor, we had the couch, & a sister took care of sweet Alfred upstairs. 2. So Davidito just wandered around from one group to the other for a long while. While watching all four of us in the living-room, he said aloud to try to get our attention, “Ah-hum! I would like to play with my cars now”, as if someone should stop the fun & join him. 3. He did a few favours for Daddy such as turn off the lights, bring us more wine, then he went upstairs to watch Alf in action. When Dito had ever seen me with Daddy before he’d always act very jealous & sometime naughty, so hoping not to offend him, Daddy suggested a while later that I’d better go find Dito & pay him a little special attention now!—And guess where I found him? —sitting on the stairs peeking down at us! 5. So next he wanted his turn, & as soon as I got into bed he jumped on me & said, “Sara, love me!” He specifically asked for several swigs of wine, & got “happy” real quick, so we really had a good time! Alf, Tim & Mommy were outside the door listening to him. “Sara, now kiss it!”, & then he began to laugh & laugh. “Ohh, it flopped in your nose!...Oh, all this hair!—So much hair!”—& was pushing my hair out of his face, but kept asking for more & more love. 6. I asked him if he was “in the mood”, as Daddy says, to which he asked, “What’s in the mood?” I said, “That means when you feel like it.” So he answered, “Oh yes, my mood feels it!” Ha! We were all really surprised that he took everything so well, since he at first didn’t have a “playmate” too & is usually very jealous about “sharing”, but he waited his turn & was a real good boy! 7. Soon afterwards, in our next location, he made up for lost time with his favourite playmate Davida. He told me, “Sara, we’re gonna have to teach Davida to like to fuck & not to push me away!” Well, I’m glad she doesn’t push him away all the time, because the very next night I couldn’t find them after dinner, but then spotted them right at the top of the stairs!—Banging away on each other! Imagine! It’s a good thing she liked it that time!
In “Swiss Family David-son”, chapter 62, when Davidito was 3 yrs. 3 mos. of age, Sara wrote:
23. Sex—(Do you find yourself looking for this part to read first? Ha!) several times while I was gone to Egypt, David mentioned he wished I’d hurry home to bed! The day upon my return we had a nice picnic lunch with Alf right by the riverside near our house. David wanted to bring a blanket & a scented candle so that we could make love, but there were too many people around, so we didn’t quite get to the climax, ha! But it was a real cute idea. He’s so precious! 24. One night when Alf & the cook were kissing & cuddling on the living room couch, David came into the bedroom & offered me a glass of wine, then suggested that we together go into the living room to be with Alf. We sat down together & he said, very politely, that he would prefer to have some apple juice because he’s “only a little boy”, & once served then we began to love-up too. We got undressed & he got real affectionate, trying to do just what Alf did. But when he realised he’d forgotten his toy car, he wanted to go back into our bedroom, so we finished our cuddling there. He usually wants love sometime every day, whether it be cuddles & kisses, nippies & bottoms, or just bouncing together in bed, Hallelujah!
In “The Island of Melita!—Acts 28:1!”, chapter 73, when he was 3 yrs. 8 mos. of age, Sara wrote:
21. Our frequent moves meant a lot of hard work on house clean-up & preparations, which David always participates in & is usually a very good boy, very “diligent in business”, & redeems his own time keeping busy with chores. It was a little difficult for him at first to be with other on the staff if Alfred & I both were busy or had to go out together, etc, but either one of sexy Pat or Sue can easily distract him when he seems worried about seeing us leave together. 22. He actually became very fond of being with the other girls, but had a funny little habit of wanting to close the doors whenever with them. Mommy said we need to get him accustomed to having his little sessions with the door open, so he can learn more about what sharing is all about.
In “Return to Switzerland!”, chapter 76, when Davidito was 3 yrs. 10 mos., Sara wrote:
2. While on the airplane David said, “Hey! Let’s love-up!” I said, “David, we can’t do that here!” & he said, “Oh, I know why! Because we’d probably break the chair!” Ha!
Regarding Davidito’s foreskin, Sara wrote:
15. He oftentimes complained that his penie hurt during this time, & I suspected that it must be due to the fact that it was naturally stretching a bit more sometimes when being washed in the morning. 16. The foreskin on his penis did not yet go back even halfway at this time, (three years, ten months old), & to be quite honest, I was overly concerned that with all the gentle but daily exercise we’d given it, it hadn’t budged a bit! (His foreskin did successfully go back one day of its own accord when he was five and a half, just as Dad said it would if it had the proper, gentle daily movement that encourages it to go back on its own, without causing pain or great concern! TTL it did!)
In “Bedwetting & the Talisman!”, chapter 78, when he was 4 years old, Sara wrote:
57. Daddy replied after reading a note from me about this, that it’s better not to make too big a thing out of wetting or non-wetting, because in order to get approval for non-wetting he thinks he needs to continue to wet some of the time. Dad said, “Well, he no longer needs `approval’, & tell him if he mentions his wetting at the table, that that’s not the place to discuss what happens in his bed. Tell him also that big boys can’t love up if they have to wear diapers like babies! If he wants to do any loving up, he’d better stop wetting & get rid of those diapers!”
In “Grandpa Stories, Typing & Discos”, chapter 79, when :::Davidito was 4 yrs. old, Sara wrote:
40. After a good dinner & fellowship, Dad would put on his cologne, comb his beautiful hair, then graciously leave the table & offer his hand to lovely Maria or one of the girls, starting off the evening with a slow number to the instrumental music that was playing during dinner. It didn’t take long before everyone would join in, the girls usually dressed in pretty nighties that’d soon be shed once we all got hoppin’! 41. David usually wanted to stay & “watch”, but he never liked what he saw—having to share his pretty Mommy or me or even Alfred with others! So even if other sweet helpers would take the children to the kitchen awhile for snack, etc, I’d eventually just take them to bed & a private “love-in” upstairs.
There are many other quotes from other publications. Shall I go on, Cognomen2? I do remember Berg quoted some dictator as saying "If you are going to tell a lie, tell a big enough one so no one will believe it could possibly be a lie". ENOUGH LYING NOW. The truth will set you free. Well maybe not. For some incarceration could happen. -Warheit
- Warheit the question you posed was "Did Maria, TFI's current top leader, ever participate in child molestation and incest of her son and molestation of other children?" And even though all you quoted above shows that the boy Davidito lived in a very sexualized atmosphere and participated in sexual activity with his nanny it does not show that Maria participated in child molestation or incest. So my answer remains NO. So I would appreciate you stop calling me a liar as it seems that you have been if you are using the above quotes to verify your accusations. But let me be clear, I am not defending what was written in the Davidito book and neither is the Family since that publication and others that in any way condoned or promoted sexual activity between adults and children were renounced nearly two decades ago. --Cognomen2 17:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Warheit: Having never met DBerg or lived in his house, i don't know what went on. It seems to me, that you have, from what you have quoted, a justifiable criticism against what went on in his household. But let me ask you, how many Family members did this involve? How many people, currently in the FAmily, ever met DAvid Berg / lived in his household / took part in what is described? How many current FAmily members even READ what you have cited from that book - as the bulk of current members, it seems to me according to the Family's own statistics, have joined in the past 15 years (the largest influx of new membership that I am aware of was in the years falling the fall of the Soviet empire and the movement's expansion into East Europe and Russia) and/or they are second generation members who were themselves children at the time that was written - was that the early 80s? Why do you seek to discredit all of these people? If you were making a research on the Catholic Church, sure you'd have a section on the Pope, and some on the leadership, and some on the wealth held in the Vatican, and some on the abuse scandals, but you'd also have the theology, and you'd also include the fact that the majority of the millions of Catholics worldwide don't have works of art stored in their basements or move their priests from parish to parish to avoid legal charges. YEs, that's happened in the Cath church, but it's not the fault of the average member. And that's my big beef here. the majority of Fam members never met DB, never met KZ, never lived in their household, never would have dreamed of the type of activity you quote as happening. Maybe you should have a page or section about "DAvid Berg and his household". But don't make out that his lifestyle was the average or norm for the Family; and certainly don't imply that this is the way life is NOW or has been during the past 20 years.
--Details2 12:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Details2: The point was that Maria, the current leader of TFI is the one who is "in charge" and that to me is like putting a pedophile in charge of child welfare. Here some have spent much time saying TFI is not responsible for what parents or others in TFI have done and they are excommunicated for Child Abuse. But the person who is the head of TFI is a known pedophile and incestor of children. Further here is a portion of a writing from Maria, your current TFI leader (unless she is using another of her aliases at the moment.) This dates from 12/1995:
================================================================
From: LOVING JESUS! Part 3 for Junior Teens DO 3029JR 12/95
119. (Mama:) What a specific answer to our prayer! Hallelujah! Thank You Jesus! You never fail! You covered everything we asked You, and more!
120. The illustration of the actor playing a role helps us to understand so much better how to accomplish what the Lord is asking of you men. Thank You Jesus! Sometimes the idea of "playing a role" has a negative connotation, like it's something shallow or insincere. But remember, Grandpa said in "Glamour or Glory," "When God has given you a role to play and you can play it with divine anointing and real inspiration of the Lord and by the power of His Spirit, you become that creation of God!" (ML #328:19).
121. Wasn't that funny how the Lord used the "In the Spirit" poem to get His point across? Both Peter and I laughed out loud during the prophecy when the Lord said, "In the Spirit, in the Spirit, you don't need to have a dong!" I guess you understand that a "dong" is a slang word for penis. He also said, "In the Spirit, in the Spirit, you can even have a cunt." For those of you who might not know, "cunt" is a slang word for a vagina. The Lord certainly has a way with words, doesn't He?
122. I want to remind you of what the Lord said in Part 2 of this series when we prayed about the word "fuck," because His counsel to us on that word can also be applied to the words "dong" and "cunt." He said: "The Words that I speak unto you are pure Words, golden Words, fitting Words, fulfilling Words! And if I use these words when speaking to you, then how can you say that these are filthy? For the Word of God is pure, and it is pure unto those that are pure. But those that are filthy, let them be filthy still! For do they not call all the goodness of God evil? Do they not call the freedom of God evil? Do they not call the freedoms that I have given to you evil? Do they not reject you for the freedoms that I have given to you? And do they not say that your actions are not of God, but are from Satan, and that you are deceived?
123. "But do you stop the freedom of God because of the opinions of man? Do you cease from sharing My Love one with another because man says that this is not of God? For whom do you listen to?--The voice of man or the voice of God? The voice of man says, `This is the way. This is what you must say!' But I say unto you, look at man, look how they seek to change all things that are true and right. Look how they seek to change My Word and to make My Word of none effect. For they say that they seek correctness and purity of word so that it offends no one. But I say it is hypocrisy, it is a cover-up, it is deception!
124. "For My Word is Truth! I speak truth. And My Word is clarity. When I called you to Me out of the life that you led before you knew Me, did this word have a holy meaning?--No, it did not, for you were not pure. But neither was My Name holy unto you. For some it was even a curse word. But when I brought you to Me, when I washed you by My Spirit and cleansed you through My Word, and when I instructed you with the Words of David, so did My Name become pure unto you.--And so did this word ("fuck") become pure unto you. So unto you who are pure, unto you who are holy, unto you who are called out from this world, so have I made these things pure unto you; and so have I given unto you My pure Words, My pure freedom, and My pure joy! And those that are without, let them be filthy still!" (ML #3025:64-66).
125. By worldly standards, it is not very proper for a Christian to say "dong" and "cunt," as those words are considered dirty slang words, but the Lord instructs us that if He chooses to use them, then they are clean, and we shouldn't be offended or disgusted or turned off by them. However, just as you don't make "fuck" a part of your normal everyday vocabulary, so you shouldn't with these words either, especially not to outsiders!
126. Let's review the Lord's counsel about the word "fuck" and how we should relate to those who have a different point of view than us. He makes it clear that using such words as "fuck," "cunt" or "dong" is not wise or loving with outsiders. He said: "Walk in wisdom towards them that are without. Become all things to all men, that you may be winsome. When you speak to those that think they be pure, use words that they think to be pure; for they understand not the true purity of God, and because of this they think that which is truly pure is defiled. For they be as Pharisees who think they know the ways of God, but who only know the way of man--man's interpretation of the ways of God. For they have the law and the letter, but are without the Spirit. Unto them, show yourselves wise and show yourselves loving, and be not offensive" (ML #3025:64-68).
===============================================================
Details2: How old are Junior Teens? Further, Maria aka Karen Zerby and a number of other AKA's has made it clear in Summit Jewels that she wants people to know that the Charter does not mean that Berg ever did anything WRONG. In light of the few pieces of literature I have quoted from here, it is clear that Maria has made some necessary changes in childcare because of things like the Lord Justice Ward case, but she still is the leader and teaching things harmful to children by mainstream society's standards. Including that Berg was not wrong in his sexual doctrines. It was more as if because of society things had to be restricted. I know there are people within TFI who are sincere Christians and do good works with others. But to be a member in good standing of TFI they are in bondage to the edicts of the "Queen" and "King" currently, who would be "Maria" and "Peter". Or whatever they may be calling themselves currently.
- Warheit what planet are you living on? The fact that Maria explained the use of those words is in no way promoting child abuse to 14 and 15 year olds. How many teenagers do you know of who don't know what those words mean? It just goes to show that if Maria had to explain to the Family teenagers what they meant that they obviously lived quite sheltered and protected lives in comparison. And besides, no matter what has or has not been written in internal Family publications it does not alter the fact that the rules governing no sexual interaction between adults and minors remain in place and if any adult breaks them they are expelled from the group. Something that you are undoubtedly well aware of and yet fail to mention. Seems like you have a personal axe to grind that prevents you approaching the subject in any sort of evenhanded NPOV manner. Last I saw no one around me was in bondage to any edicts from anyone. And if you would look at the discussion archives you will see all of this has been gone over before.--Cognomen2 18:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen2, I live on planet earth in the realm of reality. I do not see your denial of Maria being involved in the pedophilia and incest of her son as being "honest". Where it says Maria and Timothy were on the floor, while someone was with "Dad" (Berg) and a "come-union" (aka orgy with musical partners) was going on while the child helped to serve wine etc.. well, I think you are the one not in touch with reality. My argument is not with you. My argument is for accurately portraying the current leader of the family and why she is not fit to have anything at all to do with children or policy setting for the "safety" of children and one of the reasons why I believe TFI is far from safe for children. My concern is the safety of children and young adults. Also, you did not answer the question about the age of the JUNIOR TEENS as the LJR letter was DO 3029 JR which would indicate it was for reading to JUNIOR TEENS. What age were JUNIOR TEENS in TF at the time of this writing and now?-Warheit
- Warheit: He did answer the question. Junior Teens are Family children aged 14 and 15. Even if he hadn't, however, I would note that you were probably already just as aware of the answer as he. Further, I think posting portions of Family literature when you feel it is relevant to the issue in question is beneficial, but I do not see what your argument stands to gain from threatening to post such materials when Family members answer questions dishonestly or make claims with which you disagree.
- In regards to Zerby, Family publications contain plentiful references to her participating in and overseeing the abuse of children, but the specific allegation of incest with her son Ricky Rodriguez (as witnessed by Davida, and recounted by Ricky to his closest friends years before his death) was only made public in an article by Rolling Stone magazine from June 2005. Family publications do not describe the alleged act, and attempts to portray this otherwise are, IMO, really reaching.
- Aside from these points, I am generally in strong agreement with your arguments. I mean the above only as constructive criticism, but feel to take it for what it's worth (2 cents). --Monger 23:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen2, I live on planet earth in the realm of reality. I do not see your denial of Maria being involved in the pedophilia and incest of her son as being "honest". Where it says Maria and Timothy were on the floor, while someone was with "Dad" (Berg) and a "come-union" (aka orgy with musical partners) was going on while the child helped to serve wine etc.. well, I think you are the one not in touch with reality. My argument is not with you. My argument is for accurately portraying the current leader of the family and why she is not fit to have anything at all to do with children or policy setting for the "safety" of children and one of the reasons why I believe TFI is far from safe for children. My concern is the safety of children and young adults. Also, you did not answer the question about the age of the JUNIOR TEENS as the LJR letter was DO 3029 JR which would indicate it was for reading to JUNIOR TEENS. What age were JUNIOR TEENS in TF at the time of this writing and now?-Warheit
- Thank you for your 2 cents worth, Monger. My point is not to be argumentative or to threaten, it is to be factual and to get clear answers to questions I have asked as well as to answer questions I have been asked. When someone responds dishonestly, then the portions of COG/TF/TFI's own literature is the best verification of what I have stated. Regarding the incest issue, although the Rollingstone article as you say is the first publication describing an alleged specific incestuous act of Maria with her son, the fact that the Davidito book did describe her child as being in on group orgies where she and Berg were present and his wandering about would consitute involvement in pedophilia, and there were publications on incest as well as it IS incestuous for him to have observed and partaken in any degree in a "come-union" where adults including his mother and step-father figure were involved. There are letters describing her daughter in bed with her and Berg in an incestuous fashion as well. Of course anyone who had been in the family and many who have not are well aware of these issues which are so often denied. I haven't read the Rollingstone article myself yet. But thank you for pointing out how what I am saying is coming across. I will try and be less emotive in my input though it is hard to do at times.- Warheit
- Monger: I do question the age of Junior Teens. I thought the Junior teens were from 12 years old to 14. So my question was legitimate. Still, the quoted teachings would be very likely constitute legal child abuse in some states and some countries where 14 and 15 year olds are considered minor children. Again thank you for your criticism, I am new at this site.- Warheit
- Ah, I now see that's an easy mistake to make. "Junior Teens" are Family children aged 14 & 15, but "Junior End Time Teens" (JETTs) are Family children aged 12 & 13 (moved up from 11 some time in the 90s). There is also a version of the "Loving Jesus" letters written specifically for JETTs, and while it is less direct than other versions, references to sex and spiritual sexuality are still prevalent within it. Regardless, extremely explicitly encouraging 14 year olds to masturbate to Jesus and telling 14 year old boys to visualize themselves having vaginas so Jesus can make love to them would, IMHO, likely be considered disturbing by every single person in the world who is not a member of the Family, but as far as I'm aware it wouldn't legally be considered child abuse. --Monger 05:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- Monger: I do question the age of Junior Teens. I thought the Junior teens were from 12 years old to 14. So my question was legitimate. Still, the quoted teachings would be very likely constitute legal child abuse in some states and some countries where 14 and 15 year olds are considered minor children. Again thank you for your criticism, I am new at this site.- Warheit
Monger: I strongly disagree that it wouldn't be legally considered child abuse (practice of LJR involving minor children). It is extremely abusive but as far as I know there is no precedent in the form of legal process to identify it as such- YET. It is such a bizarre doctrine that the law hasn't caught up with it to identify it as sexual abuse though some laws, if a case were to be brought to court, might well label it as such. After all, in some states for example, it is not necessary to touch a child to sexually abuse them. This is such a weird form of abuse. I can't imagine that any judge in the country would not be stunned that a group of any kind would advocate this behavior. - Warheit
Child Abduction?
- I would suggest that any NEW sections, such as this, that are added to the site, are better researched before they are uploaded. If there is to be a discussion on child custody issues, then the Family's policies should be stated (I have added this into the linked page), and a balanced set of examples - when the policies seem to have worked, and when there have been alleged problems.
- The heading and allegations as originally presented was, from what I can tell by the data included, exaggerated. Perhaps the person who originated this has a strongly held POV that the fact that because there are two (i think it was two - or was it three) cases over the past 35 years where someone has alleged that they were prevented custody of their child is an indication of "increased reports of child abduction". That is a very serious accusation to make against a religious movement. If the author serious believes this is a trend in the movement, it seems they should be contacting law enforcement instead of writing in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, perhaps that author has a very strong anti-Family bias and is simply trying to dig up any dirt they possibly can to present the group in its most unfavorable light. Perhaps the author should have also mentioned the "famous" Justice Ward case, where the mother returned voluntarily to the UK jurisdiction in order to be able to fight for the right to retain custody of her child after the grandmother had petitioned for the child's removal - a right the mother won and maintains to this day. --Details2 11:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- Details2, there been have many cases (possibly hundreds, not just 2 or 3) of child abduction in the Children of God and the Family. In the interests of creating a concise summary, I only listed one case in the main Children of God article and four in the Child Abduction in the Children of God entry. I plan to soon add the case of Peter Bevan Riddell, who was convicted in 1984 of kidnapping and forgery. Perhaps you believe David Berg was lying to the members when he wrote in Mo Letter 1458 that "We've had plenty of cases like that, & that's the only way we've been able to help the Family mates keep the child, because the System is against us & its laws are against our Members, very unjust & unfair & anti-Christ & often of the Devil!" However, it is clear that he was correct that there have been many cases. Illegally removing children from the lawful custody of their parents is not called "preventing custody." The correct term is child abduction and kidnapping. These cases have been reported to and investigated by law enforcement agencies all over the world. The Family continues to shelter fugitives from justice such as Brian Edward Pickus who is still wanted for kidnapping, burglary and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. In these types of international child abduction cases, the priority is to find and return the missing children to their parents rather than prosecution and conviction. I have added information about the Charter policies introduced in 1995 and the June 2003 amendments. The 1992 UK case decided by Lord Justice Ward was not a child abduction case; it involved a grandmother seeking custody of her grandson. Manicmoe 13:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- Manicmoe: And what about the many cases where one parent left the Family, stealing their children from the other parent? I will not resort to naming legal names. But examples are multiplied. Unlike you, I see these as personal matters that the parents didn't resolve amicably. Unlike you, I don't see this in blck and white terms. There are guilty parties in most marriage breakups, and frankly both parties are usualy guilty. if a marriage ends, and the parents care abouttheir childrne's welfare, they will work it out that the children stay in contact with the other parent. That doesn't matter f they are blue, white, green, Family members, Satanists, Protestants, Jewish, who cares what. That's what parenting is about. In my book .And I'm fed up of this site being used to throw dirt at the Family as a whole. Individuals do shitty things and maybe some policies are shitty but stop casting stones at the whole movement which is made up of thousands of indivduals, most of whom are sincere Christians who are trying their best to raise their families and make the world a better place. IF YOU REALLY HAVE EVIDENCE OF CHILD ABDUCTION, GO TO INTERPOL!!! --Details2 11:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ps. The point of the case in the UK is that it disproves your argument that the Family hides children. NT, the mother in the case, was not in the UK jurisdiction when the case was begun. If the Family truly was into "fleeing" and "hiding", effectively she had already done it. But she decided voluntarily, with the support of the Family, to return to the legal jurisdiction of the court so she coudl fight her case out on legal terms. And the FAmily stood behind her. Didn't James Penn aka Philip Sherwood actually testify in court on the Family's behalf? Gosh I hope, considering his later anti-Family statements, that he didn't perjure himself. --Details2 11:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Details2, Unlike you, I don't see children as commodities or property that can be stolen. I am not aware of any cases where parents have left the Family with their children and failed to legally resolve custody disputes in the judicial system. I think the reason you are not naming legal names is either because you don't know any or because if you did name them, the record would show that parents who left the group with their children actually had legal custody of their children which was affirmed by courts having jurisdiction over the matter. There is the case of Vivian Shillander who was not allowed to leave with all her children when she left the Family in Thailand. When she returned to the United States, she obtained sole legal custody of all her children and returned to Thailand to get them back. I understand her ex-husband, the children's father, later returned to the United States, as instructed by David Berg, claimed to have left the Family and obtained visitation rights and eventually legal custody of some of the children. Maybe you believe it is possible to for children to be abducted and to live in the Family on the run for many years without Family leadership supporting their actions and being fully aware of the situtation but I don't. In all these cases of child abduction, Family leadership and de facto policies and practices fully supported the abduction of the children. The average Family member does not have thousands of dollars saved up to fly abducted children all over the world, procure forged passports, run with the abducted children from country to country always a step ahead of law enforcement agencies looking for the missing children and live in hiding for years (in some child abduction cases in the Family, for decades). To do that takes significant resources and support which was provided by the Family in accordance with standard policies and practices in place at the time. There is no evidence to support your claim that in all these cases Family members acted completely independently without the knowledge and support of Family leadership.
- Furthermore, in some of these child abduction cases, both parents were not in the Family and naively assumed that the Family would comply with court orders to return their children. The Frouman case is a good example of that. The person who abducted the children was Stuart Harris Baylin who was not the father of any of the children but rather the mother's second ex-husband and a man who had violently abused (by "violently abused" I mean beating them until they were bleeding, breaking their bones and teeth, giving them black eyes and bloody noses, hitting them with a piece of wood with nails sticking out of it, etc. This abuse was regularly reported to regional Family leadership as it occurred and was reported to the top leaders of the Family in 1987 yet nothing at all was done about it and he is still a member of the Family International in good standing) the mother and the children for many years. Mr. Baylin was not the father of the children and never had legal custody. The father and the mother were the ones with legal custody and a court in Argentina ordered him to return all the children and rejected his petition for custody. Instead, only two children were returned and the younger two not returned until many years later. Apparently almost nothing will convince the Family to return abducted children as the children were not returned even after the police in Argentina raided 10 Family homes in September 1993 looking for them. Stuart Baylin received thousands of dollars from Family reserve funds to flee with the children to other countries.
- What David Berg's letters and other Family publications have to say about these matters is highly relevant. To claim that the Charter, which was not introduced until February 1995, is the only relevant document about Family policies and practices is absurd. Furthermore, I cannot find anything in the Charter that specifically bans child abduction, requires members to comply with the law, report child abduction to law enforcement agencies and excommunicates members who have abducted children and conspired to help others abduct children. Someone mentioned here that the Charter is currently being revised or rewritten. Perhaps it is time for the Family to put in places policies that protect the rights of children and the rights of parents.
- Yes, law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries have gone to INTERPOL. Maybe you don't understand the way it works but my understanding is that individuals do not report crimes to Interpol; instead they report these matters to local law enforcement agencies which then report them to Interpol as needed to obtain the cooperation and help of otehr law enforcement agencies that are members of the association. As was stated in ML 1458, the Family was well aware of Interpol and other law enforcement agency investigations. David Berg's advice in situations where Interpol and other law enforcement agencies were looking for abducted children was for them to flee to other countries where they could "get lost" and not be found. In the case of Brian Edward Pickus, the state of Hawaii and the FBI contacted Interpol and obtained a warrant for the arrest of Pickus for kidnapping, burglary and unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. Mr. Pickus is still a member of the Family and still a fugitive from justice. Berg's advice and counsel in these situations was applied to specific actual cases and was not just a suggestion involving hypothetical cases.
- The 1992 UK case does not disprove the fact that the Family has kidnapped and concealed children. It is not all surprising that the Family would show up in court in a case like that where they expected to easily win. It usually takes extraordinary circumstances for a grandmother or another relative to be awarded custody in a case where the mother is competent and there are no specific allegations of child abuse or neglect involving the child. The Family won that case but it was a long hard-fought victory and they had to make damaging admissions, change their policies and introduce the Charter before the judge ruled that the home where the child lived was a safe environment. However, in all these other cases where they lost or had no chance at all of winning, they simply abducted the children and moved them from country to country without ever resolving the matter legally. Manicmoe 20:54, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- 'Manicmoe': Yes, you're not aware of the "other side" because you don't want to hear! Yo'ure convinced of your opinions. But I remember the wife who wept for days after her husband grabbed the children and ran off with another woman. And I have a good friend who is currently involved in a legal battle after his wife stole the chilren, despite them having a prior agreement on their custody and she spent time EVERY DAY in his (Family) home with the children. And what about the case in the last year, where a husband who left the Family broke the agreement regarding the children, and the wife got jumpy and didn't want to visit him anymore lest he tried to get the rest of the children? Family members helped mediate that one and now the husband/wife are back in touch and visiting each other, as originally agreed. But Family doesn't get any credit, only blame in your book. And if you think that the NT case looked like a "good chance of winning", and that's why she returned, you must be joking!!! Another dad I know finally got in touch with his daughter, finally tracked her down, after something like 20 years ago his wife had split with her. And now they're good friends. This is rather sadly typical, because it is very difficult for a "cult" member to win back custody if their child is stolen by the other parent, because courts are usually prejudiced against the "non-conventional" upbringing and this goes for Jehovah's witnesses, and all sorts of minority religions. If you could find out how many "FGAs" have (now grown) children out in the world, and yo'ud see how much child abduction has taken place - but not your version! I don't doubt you're right, there's been some the other way round - some Family parents who panicked they were going to lose their kids. But until this site acknowledges that this has been just as likely to happen in reverse, then this site is a platform for a BIASED POINT OF VIEW on the movement, it is a platform for expressing YOUR OPINIONS and is not factually worthy of being included in an encylopedia. What if the Family starts a section : "Exmembers of the COG" and blames them all being as premeditated murderers, as their poster child killed a middle aged woman in cold blood? I personally don't think that most exmembers, even the most antagonistic, would even consider such violent action. But those assumptions could be made, based on the comments that have been later published in the media by some other exmembers. And what if some of those exmembers are actually guilty of the things they're accusing the current movement of? And what if among the exmember community, there are some that have broken the law and ended up in prison for drug abuse? What do we headline it, "Drug abuse and drug dealing amongst Exmember Community". Come on, can we get realistic. Do YOU honestly think that the Family as a whole is a conspiracy to abuse and abduct children? Do you think that of those poor missionaries, struggling to make ends meet while they raise funding for fishermen who lost their livelihood in the Tsunami? And what about the dozens of young people who leave the movement and then make a determined decision to rejoin? Oh man, are they doing it so they can be abused some more? YES abuse has taken place.-in the Family and outside. YES some Family members have no doubt broken the law and yes some exmembers have done it too.--In direct connection with their desire to hurt the Family. When are the opponents of the Family going to come REALLY clean? In the words of my favorite religious leader: "let him that is without sin cast the first stone."--Details2 09:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Details. Sorry for the absence from the debate here. It seems Manicmoe is or is someone close to Peter Frouman who was involved in an abnormal situation with his mother and her exhusband and her kids. I believe she passed on and her husband had the custody of the kids and then her relatives filed for custody of the kids in the States and were eventually returned to the mother's relatives. He was caught in the middle of it all. I don't know the whole story but it seems this is a personal issue with him so he understandably riding this issue as a hobbyhorse. Although David Berg states in that one letter that there were "many" situations like this I would have to say that I have only personally heard of two and Manicmoe mentions both of them in his comments in this discussion. On the other side of things, as you state, I know of several cases where the departing member has taken the kids in situations like this. Anyway, these are abnormal situations and I agree that they don't warrant being in this encyclopedia article about the Family.--Cognomen2 17:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
- Cognomen2, first of all your comment has several factual errors regarding the Frouman case. The relatives of Ruth Frouman did not file for custody in the United States as there was no need to. The mother and the father of the children already had custody according to the laws of the United States and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act of 1969. After Ruth Froumans's death, the children's father was the only person who had legal custody of his children. Starting in 1987, the Frouman children were in the unlawful custody of Stuart Baylin, Claire Borowik and other Family members in Argentina. In 1990, before her death, Ruth Frouman filed a complaint in an Argentine court seeking the return of her children. In 1993, Claire Borowik and Stuart Baylin partially complied with a court order (by Judge Campora of the Tribunal de Menores de Mercedes) to return all four children by only returning the older two (then aged 17 and 20). The two older children were returned to the United States by order Judge Campora. The other children were never returned by the Family and were not allowed to to have any contact with their relatives or to attend their mother's funeral in 1991 or their brother's funeral in 1994. The youngest abducted Frouman child was not reunited with his relatives until he ran away from the Family in 1997 at age 16 to find them. I would agree this case is unusual in that in most other child abduction cases in the Family, the children were abducted by one of their parents while in this case the person who abducted them was not their father and never had legal custody of them in any jurisdiction in the world after July 1987. That's why I listed other cases as well. David Berg was absolutely correct when he stated that there were many cases. It's not surprising you are not aware of these other cases especially since the Family has had policies in the past forbidding or strongly discouraging its members from from reading "System" books, magazines and newspapers. I have only listed 5 cases in the article that are representative of these types of cases and refective of the Family's policies and practices at the time. These cases are significant to the Family's history. The prosecution (I guess you probably prefer the term persecution) of Family members and the raids on Family home in Argentina in 1989 and 1993 were directly related to at least two child abduction cases (one of them was the Frouman case). Neither you or Details2 have disputed any of the facts in the article and the summary. I see no reason to remove factual statements from the article just because most people would interpret them as reflecting very negatively on the Family and its past. Second of all, whether Manicmoe is Peter Frouman or not is completely irrelevant. I don't see any of you posting here with your real names and your user pages are completely empty. For all I know, you and Details2 and all the other so called "pro-COG" contributos could be the same person. Claire Borowik and Christian Kelly (Peter Amsterdam's son) have both edited this article without disclosing their names and employer so I see no reason I should do so. Manicmoe 00:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Details. Sorry for the absence from the debate here. It seems Manicmoe is or is someone close to Peter Frouman who was involved in an abnormal situation with his mother and her exhusband and her kids. I believe she passed on and her husband had the custody of the kids and then her relatives filed for custody of the kids in the States and were eventually returned to the mother's relatives. He was caught in the middle of it all. I don't know the whole story but it seems this is a personal issue with him so he understandably riding this issue as a hobbyhorse. Although David Berg states in that one letter that there were "many" situations like this I would have to say that I have only personally heard of two and Manicmoe mentions both of them in his comments in this discussion. On the other side of things, as you state, I know of several cases where the departing member has taken the kids in situations like this. Anyway, these are abnormal situations and I agree that they don't warrant being in this encyclopedia article about the Family.--Cognomen2 17:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Criticism by Details2
I am moving Details2's recent edits to the Criticism section here as I believe these personal opinions and messages belong on the discussion page rather than the article, which is supposed to follow certain basic style and NPOV guidelines. Manicmoe 14:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Criticism tends to be unfairly levelled at the entire group, rather than at the individual members, including specificed leaders, who allegedly commited those actions worthy of criticism.
Likewise criticism is made largely on the basis of the writings of David Berg, whose thousands of pages do NOT reflect either the fundamental beliefs (contained in the Statement of Faith) not the organisations policies (contained in the Charter, published in 1995). David Berg's bombastic opinions on a variety of topics provide fertile ground for criticism but it is not less fair to accuse Family members as a whole on their basis as it would be to accuse every Muslim of terrorism on the basis of some statements in Muslim Holy Books.
Criticism tends to be blanket towards the movement, without taking into account a) that the majority of members are law-abiding people, who are simply trying to serve God according to their sincerely held beliefs, care for their families, and pursue their missionary goals. b) Opponents of the Family have often committed the same or worst than they accuse the Family members of doing. Looking into the personal records of some of the most vocal opponents is enlightening. c) Situations involving the Family have usually been complex, with many sides. The description of second generation members is a good example. There are second generation members who are content with their life; there are almost an equal amount who left the movement to pursue other lifestyles. And out of those who left, there is a fair proportion who are angry at the movement, some apparently with good cause. The "Child Abduction" section is an example of a poor description, which doesn't take into account the fact that it has been just as common for partners in a failed marriage to "steal" their children from their partner in the Family as it has been vice versa. A recent case in a European country, the legal proceedings of which are ongoing, is a case in point.
Family members and opponents alike have a right to their point of view and their interpretation of present and past events. This interpretation comes out in their edits of this site, and it's quite easy to see who is "pro" and who is "anti". It is difficult to find middle ground. However, it is hoped that readers will understand this dilema and realise that the Family is neither all black, nor all white, and every description is colored by strongly held feelings.
- Manicmoe: Fair enough, I agree it was pretty POVish... I will rewrite in more neutral terms. --Details2 12:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)