Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from figaro Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 09:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I have a question that sort of goes along with this topic. Some of the FGAs have got to be getting up in years, since the family has been around since what 66? So if they were in their 20s when they joined back then, or older when they joined later on that would put them in their 60s, so whats going to happen when those members start getting too old to take care of themselves and will be pretty much of no use to "serving the Lord"? I mean, they don't exactly have pensions or retirement set up and somehow I doubt that TF is going to pay for them to go into a home or for their medical expenses when their health starts to fade. I also doubt that there are many members who could take proper care of them, and I get the feeling that once they are unable to pull their load in the home they will not be wanted in the group anymore. Anyone know what their plans are for this situation (if they even HAVE a plan, which I kind of doubt), cause theirs going to be a whole lot of them pretty soon. (reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Saturday, November 24, 2007, 13:57 (Agree/Disagree?) This situation had already started to arise, when I was last in. It seems that there are two waves of thinking, the first is that the no-longer active members, become supporters and live in their own little homes, on the fringes. The second and I think there was a GN to this effect, was that even though they may not be able to contribute financial or physically anymore, they are still our brothers in the lord, and they can teach us lots of super sweet humble lessons. They can be more spiritual because they aren’t distracted by the affairs of this life. Sounds like the first gen started to lose the power so they found a way to become God’s mouth pieces. (reply to this comment)

from TimothyD Saturday, November 24, 2007 - 02:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I was always bad at math, but I'd have to say there's a few more then that.. But definately not that many... It would definately be interesting to find out how many are still in. (reply to this comment)

from Lauren Sunday, November 18, 2007 - 08:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Although probably only wishful thinking, it would be interesting to find out how much this shift in percentage of Family born who remain changes over time. In 2005, when Claire Borowick first started using that line, she said "nearly half," and it's now 42%. Knowing that she will always use a term which puts them in a better light, I think it's safe to assume that the percentage of family born remaining is less than it was in 2005, which would indicate that as children reach majority they leave in higher numbers than the group is able to birth them in. Although my math skills suck and my way of running the numbers not nearly as straightforward as yours, the total of remaining SGAs that I came up with in 2005 wasn't much higher than yours in 2007. http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=9&ID=3246 (reply to this comment)

from Eva St John Friday, November 16, 2007 - 20:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Hi guys. (I haven't commented or posted here for ages, although I still visit regularly to read the latest articles and comments. I think you guys are the greatest and I love following your posts from a 'respectful distance'). Anyhow, I recently had a brief converstaion with my brother (who was also a first generationer in TF and left with his wife and kids around the same time I did) about how many full time members are actually left in TF. Like most 1st geners, he has remained silent and in 'partial denial' of what went on in TF, and he hobnobs ('fellowships') with other ex 1st geners. (Personally, I have no desire to see or talk with any 1st gener's who aren't completely honest and up front and willing to speak up publicly about TF's past and I can't imagine what they talk about amongst themselves when they're all still in so much denial!). He told me he recently went to a barbeque with a couple of ex Family leaders here in Australia (one visiting from the States to meet a couple of his offspring here) who each have had 15 children to several different women, and they are all out of TF now. My brother told me that apparently Paul and Joy Hartington are the only full time members left here in Oz - and perhaps a couple of people living in their house with them. Everyone else (including almost all of their kids apparently) has left or 'partially left' to become TRfer's (or whatever the term is now). So if that's the case here in Oz, I would hazard a guess that it's probably the case in most other countries as well. You guys with parents still in or who still have communication with Family members would be able to correct me if I'm wrong, but my impression is that there are probably actually only a handful of 'hardliners' left full time in TF who have simply set up a few fraudulaent 'charity fronts' and web sites, etc, to make it look like they're still a large organization, when they're really just a few people operating out of a few small Homes with a few associate hangers-on to lord it over, and a few still-deluded SGA's to do all the 'good sample' front work. It's clear that all the 'public sharing of information' by the ex SGA's has had a major impact on Family full time numbers - of both generations. And it goes without saying that a lot of those 1st gen fulltimers that are left are only remaining in because they are some of the key abusers who would be brought to justice and jailed if they were to leave the protective 'cover' of TF. I reckon there may only be a few hundred full time members left in the whole world. Would my assumption be correct, do ya think? (reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Saturday, November 24, 2007, 14:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think that’s correct I know of a few others, but defiantly only 1/3 of what there was; though that mainly seems to be because they all moved to the States and Mexico. As someone pointed out, the 'Family International' is still thriving all over the world. What’s more they seem to be holding the younger generation, all the ones that where too young to remember. (reply to this comment)

From bubba Sunday, November 18, 2007, 07:09 (Agree/Disagree?) I know there are hundreds of people still in the Familiy in Mexico and Latin America including my parents. Several in the Family have also received large inheritances which probably mean they will stay in for the rest of their lives unless upper leadership puts pressure on them to donate.(reply to this comment)

From The Archer Sunday, November 18, 2007, 02:39 (Agree/Disagree?) People are leaving The Family in droves. Most people around my age have left that I know, and the name of the organization has got such a bad reputation, its a burden just to be associated with the name. It's pretty clear that David Berg is a proven child abuser, as the media reports on the testimonies of his own children, people are starting to realize that The Family was birthed on sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. I was lied to by Family leaders for a longtime as they made excuses for the abuse that had happened, I believed these excuses for a longtime, untill I finally woke up to the truth. Im happy to be out and Im happy not being told constant lies, its good to finally live in the truth and the light. Zerby's finances must be getting pretty tight. As more people leave, their financial support is getting smaller and smaller, I think the organization is going to die out soon. One Family Home I was involved with; every SGA has decided to leave The Family. (reply to this comment)

From Snufkin Saturday, November 17, 2007, 06:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I dont think this is entirely the case. There seems to be a large diference in the percentages in "western" and thirdworld countries. My family is still all in and in my Xp from talking to them and friends that are still in, it seems that while the vast majority of young ppl in western Eurpoe do end up leaving. However, in places like India and asia there it is unusual for young ppl to leave unless their entire families leave as well. I think the reasons for this is quite obvious... in places like that they would literaly be sweeping the street with thier lvl of education and opportunities and for them TF seems a better lifestyle. Anyhow .. just my opinion.(reply to this comment)

From Lemmiwinks Sunday, November 18, 2007, 07:32 (Agree/Disagree?) If your assessment is correct (it seems plausible to me), then there might see an "aging out" effect with the second generation as they grow older and more skilled at doing aid work in developing countries like India, etc. I can understand staying in TF between the age of 18-27 because the lifestyle is preferable to sweeping the streets, but staying in the group over the long haul takes a little more personal sacrifice than settling for the lesser of two evils. TF's leadership periodically goes into a destructive cycle that purges the group of weaker members, and for that matter, anyone who is a little too creative or successful. Around age 28-33, adults begin to reassess their lifestyle choices and options. I wouldn't be surprised if a fairly high number of adults in this age group moved on to other things as opportunities naturally arise. (reply to this comment)

From Eva St John Saturday, November 17, 2007, 16:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I'd say that would be true. The SG's would have a lot less resources or support if they left TF alone in a third world country, -(which is why most of the Teen Training Camps were placed in 3rd world or non-English-speaking lands). But now we have Safe Passage and RISE, perhaps it would be of service to the SGA's in these countries to let them know support is available to them if they left. I haven't heard a lot about the aims or mission statement of the new RISE yet, but I would guess that maybe part of the aid they are willing to provide must be to help penniless, resourceless, supportless SG's leave TF in isolated areas or far off lands, if they so desired.(reply to this comment)

from cheeks Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 11:39 (Agree/Disagree?) In the same way you did the math for SGA's in the Family you could do it for the SGA's who have committed suicide. The percentages are so much higher that people realize. If you figure the children that were born into the family and just take the ones that are over 18 now and do the math it is frightening. It is even more frightening if you only include the older SGA's who have killed themselves say the ones who were born from 1970 to 1980 and then do the math. The Family continues to delude themselves that is wasn't so bad if they only did the math they may re-think the issue. (reply to this comment)

From hm.. Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 18:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe the general population of The Family "continues to delude themselves that is wasn't so bad", but I think that Claire Borrowik and other people in positions of power in The Family are just continuing to try to delude others, when they really know how bad it is. (reply to this comment)

From steam Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 18:18 (Agree/Disagree?) "They may rethink the issue" -Ha. There is already a standup comedian on this site.(reply to this comment)

from steam Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 10:42 (Agree/Disagree?) The problem with the math is that it assumes all of those under eighteen are still in the group. However with parents leaving so do the kids. But even if you have to give a solid allowance for that factor 15% would be a generous figure. In addition they are counting "Fellow Members" and if some family is under that category they may report all of their kids of whatever age under their "TRF" but the young people are in many cases likely to have no interaction with of interest in anything to do with the group which is something that would skew the numbers in their favor, so all in all it seems 15% retention rate for those over 18 gives a great deal of allowance to the group to factor in the unknowns which I mentioned. (reply to this comment)

From Skanska Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 21:12 (Agree/Disagree?) No. My math does not assume "all of those under eighteen are still in the group". That may or may not be the case, but it is irrelevant to my conclusion about those _over_ 18. I am not sure how you found the "retention rate" to be 15%? It is what I wrote: Around 5-6% for those over 18. Also, how do you know they are counting "Fellow Members" in these statistics? I am interested to know, as it could drastically reduce the retention rate numbers if we subtracted all non-full-time members. PS: Of the seven children in my family, only one (the oldest) is still in. It might be nice if we started a list somewhere where people could list the total number of children in their family and how many of those are still full members. Something like the following: Name, Total children, Total still in.(reply to this comment)

From The Archer Monday, November 19, 2007, 06:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Skanska said: "It might be nice if we started a list somewhere where people could list the total number of children in their family and how many of those are still full members. Something like the following: Name, Total children, Total still in." That is an excellent idea, I think that would be a great way to get a realistic idea on things. (reply to this comment)

From steam Thursday, November 15, 2007, 08:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I liked your article and thought it brought out a good point, however this is what you said: "If we only consider those over 18 as actual members, then all we have to do is sum the total number of births since 1989 and subtract them from the total (6,121). The total number of births since 1989 is 5,683. That means that only 483 SGAs (those born into TFI) over 18 remain in the group." The problem is that you summed the births from 1989 and included the full number. As I pointed out some of those would not be included in the number of current members therefore if the number being subtracted from goes down, the amount left over goes up. The assumption that the are including even the lowest FM level of membership was based on the statistics they published showing that the approximately 10-12k membership figures that vary from year to year include over 5k on the lowest level. Even though those statistics are a few years old, it seems clear to me that the inner level did not double suddenly so over 6k children would have to include the "FM" status. My 15% number is not meant to be a claim of pinpoint accuracy, rather it is an attempt to give some generous leeway to the unknown factor of how many of the 5683 born after 1989 would still be counted as still being in. One additional point should be made, that is that if The Family really thought the statistics were a positive reflection of their retention of second generation members. They would be forthcoming with exact year by year statistics as they keep very detailed records. Since they guard information so jealously leaving us to try to use methods like you did to arrive at the truth it is clear that the truth is embarrassing. Enough said.(reply to this comment)

From figaro Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 23:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm assuming when you say "name" you mean the name of your parents right? so, here it is. (Mother) Name: Luke and Ava NewLove. Total Children: 12 Total Still In: 1 (Father) Name: Elam NewSong Total Children: 4 Total Still In: 1(reply to this comment)

from cheeks Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 08:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I come from a family of six girls all of us have left. I think most of the ones who stayed were the nasty little crappers who would rat us out all the time. I say let them have it. We are the ones who are laughing now. (reply to this comment)

from DeeJay Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 21:17 (Agree/Disagree?) So maybe we can take comfort in the knowledge that most of them finally come to their senses when they come of age. Only less than 10 percent stay stupid. Maybe we don't have to worry about them as much. They'll grow up and make the logical decision to leave the shitty, abusive cult on their own. (reply to this comment)

from holysavage Tuesday, November 13, 2007 - 08:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Well...i wouldn't doubt that at all! I come from a family of ten...of those 10 6 are out, one is almost out, 2 are too young to make up their minds yet and one is still brainwashed...and I'm pretty sure that if we all look around we will find tons of similar cases...just that most families whose parents are still in will never admit to that fact.... (reply to this comment)

From Spring Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 13:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Makes sense to me. My dad and his wife had 9 kids (not including me). All but 2 are now out. I know of a number of scenarios like this.(reply to this comment)

From figaro Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 17:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Of my 15 blood siblings that I am aware of, (11 of which I grew up with, 12 of us including me) only 2 are sill in. My second oldest sister on my mothers side is Celeste, AKA "Joan" of Joan and Richard (I don't know his TF name) in Japan. And my oldest sister on my fathers side whom I have never met and don't even know her name! But with how much of a "free spirit" and "love sharer" my biological father (Elam Newsong the famous singer/song writer in TF) was, who knows how many more siblings I have and who/where they are! Too bad there is no way to track that sort of thing due to the way things where back then under the rule of Berg!(reply to this comment)

From clark Thursday, November 15, 2007, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I have 10 siblings. ALL, yes ALL 11 of us are out, :) my parents as well. Only the youngest is under 18. (reply to this comment)

From exfamily Tuesday, November 13, 2007, 10:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I come from a family of nine, all of whom are still in TF. :((reply to this comment)

From Big Sister Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 20:42 (Agree/Disagree?) That's interesting. From what other people here are saying, most families have lost at least half their SGAs. Can you speculate as to why your family is all so stuck? Are your siblings mostly still young? Is your family isolated in a third world country so it's harder to get away? (reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 12:30 (Agree/Disagree?) In my family there are 8 kids, all those over 18 (5) have quit and left--YAY that is 100% leave rate. My family is now in the 3rd degree of family membership (so they say) I wish to heaven everyday that they finally leave too. (reply to this comment)

From afflick Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 13:18 (Agree/Disagree?) What does "3rd degree of family membership" mean? I was thinking earlier of my childhood in TF and how the labels placed on things remained pretty steady: you had your GAFMs, LAFMs, D.O. and TRF status. Labels did not change every few years in most instances, but only when a "major shakeup" letter concerning these labels was sent to the Homes. I left seven years ago and kept up with Family doctrine a few years after that, but since then, it's like a completely foreign cult. I've never heard of this "3rd degree" thing, though I did manage to make myself aware of the MM, CM labels when they came up a few years ago. My understanding is that has also changed again. In contemplating why TF has decided to shed labels so often recently, it has occurred to me that perhaps this is Zerby's attempt to "keep up" with Berg in announcing "new revelations." She may be attempting to keep members off-center by presenting them with urgent changes, even just label changes, that they must focus on implementing. It cannot be as easy as it once was to run a cult, especially one where members live away from the leader's physical influence. For example, there is the Internet, where a member can type a concern into an online database and come up with much more information than by writing the leader or simplyt forgetting about the query. Members can see the reality of outsider's lives through their social website pages or their blogs and determine that these individuals are leading happy and productive lives, contrary to what they are being taught in the cult. Most importantly, perhaps, there is email and the ability to privately and easily communicate with outsiders and members of society at large. (reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 14:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Crazy isn't it Afflick, I think it's just a way of creating "Eliticism" and try to make some people feel "special" or part of the "chosen one's" just because they are giving more liberties and money to the cult. As far as I understand now there are basically 5 types of membership, with the top 3 tier being in the cult, reading mo letters etc..maybe I am confused-- someone please clear this up for me. (reply to this comment)

From Eliticism? Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 16:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Excuse me for being a pedanticist, but the word is 'elitism'. (reply to this comment)

From pedanticist?? Saturday, November 24, 2007, 10:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I think the word you meant was "Pedant", pedanticist is not a word!(reply to this comment)

From Dr. Romant Saturday, November 24, 2007, 13:40 (Agree/Disagree?) You have an irony deficiency.(reply to this comment)

From conan Saturday, November 24, 2007, 11:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, comforting to know I'm not the last pedantic prick left on this site! :D(reply to this comment)

From exfamily Wednesday, November 14, 2007, 13:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Tragic, isn't it. (reply to this comment)