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

from clark Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 07:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I still don't understand how "putting guidlines in place" in the mid 80's allows them to ignore crimes that went on prior to that. Were they not wrong before then?   (reply to this comment)

from Randi Tuesday, September 23, 2008 - 03:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Erm what dorks!! Aren't they a couple hyppies that have like 20 kids living out in the wilderness somewhere illegally importing cars from Japan or something?THAT speaks for itself. I wonder if TF actually realizes that they are a laughing stock and that absolutely no one takes them seriously.....?%& No one cares what they have to say... well I guess the media can alway use the cash. (reply to this comment)

From Randi Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 04:07 (Agree/Disagree?) On a serious note... This kind of response is so typical from abusers in general...Any educated psychologist should be able to spot that. They are never wrong... they can never accept responsibility and they have no concience... they dont feel bad about it... It's always the victims fault and they generally accuse the victim of being crazy and remembering the incident wrong and of egateration. Typical and also typical!!!  TF needs to realize that they have no right to say anything other than "I am so sorry" and that is IT!...and they need to realize that they are only making themselves look worse by all this "justification" crap. Its like they suffer from a collective retardation syndrome... They're only making themselves look bad by writting this kind of doo doo. When are they gonna get that??????????????????????????????????????????????????(reply to this comment)

From Big Sister Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 21:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, I don't know. I think in addition to "I am so sorry" an offer to make reparations is in order. Fits right in with their backwards "Words speak Louder than Actions" philosophy.(reply to this comment)

from Robyn Pistols Monday, September 22, 2008 - 12:31 (Agree/Disagree?) What motivation would anyone have to 'make up' a story of abuse? And then to tell as many people as they can? However, what motivation would an abuser have to deny knowledge and slander evidence of what was done? I think anyone with a functioning brain can answer that for themselves. Why should anyone trust a pedophile to tell the truth ha ha! Thats the best they can do! (reply to this comment)

from der Teufel Friday, May 09, 2008 - 01:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Haha, I can't believe I've even met those people several times and stayed under their roof for a while. "Any form of abuse, whether sexual, physical or otherwise is absolutely forbidden in our fellowship. Any infraction of this rule will result in immediate expulsion from our fellowship." When was that statement "supposedly" put into action? Because I know and have heard of people who have been abused recently enough (in the 90s, after TF made it "clear" that abusers were not tolerated), and when they finally reported it to WS (mind you, they reported it RECENTLY), WS took no steps against the abuser. It would be interesting to know what percentage of the abusers in TFI were expelled (...); I'm sure we'd be pretty shocked to see how many perverts make up the whole of the cult. It's hard to think that most civilized countries haven't done anything drastic (or relevantly drastic) to prevent the life and growth of cults. If they have, it is obviously *not effective.* (reply to this comment)

from cosmogrrl Monday, April 28, 2008 - 17:26 (Agree/Disagree?) It's interesting that Gideon and Rachel accuse you of exaggeration, but they avoid getting into any details of what specifically is untrue or exaggerated. They did the same thing with Mene. Since they knew that they couldn't deny her claims were true, they resorted to attacking her character and sanity. Also, the statement is written by people who were not with you and your sisters throughout your childhood and who have no way of knowing if anything you wrote is fictitious. For what it's worth, I read your book in one sitting. You ladies are very brave to put it all out there, and I'm sure your book will help many. (reply to this comment)

from jez Monday, April 28, 2008 - 13:31 (Agree/Disagree?) OMFG! They've got a trademark sign next to their name! Like someone wants to steal THEIR identity. The mind boggles at their inflated sense of importance. Ahhh too good! LMAO! (reply to this comment)

from Peter Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 19:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Apparently, lying comes so naturally to Family spokespersons like Rachel and Gideon Scott that they just don't know how to respond to anything without making blatantly false and deceptive statements. For example, they state that "This was officially corrected in 1986, when it was made clear, and we accept that it should have been made clear earlier, that sexual contact between an adult and minor was totally unacceptable." That is indeed interesting because in a recent Family publication, child molester Steven Douglas Kelly (aka Peter Amsterdam) devoted more than 20 paragraphs to an attempt to explain why it would be unfair and unjust for The Family to expel members who RAPED CHILDREN before July 1989.[1] According to Kelly, one of the two top leaders of the The Family, before July 1989 it was so unclear to Family members that raping children was wrong that it would be extremely unfair for The Family to expel the child molesters who raped children before The Family's "moral turnaround" on the issue of raping children. If Kelly's statements in an official publication of The Family International are true, then the statement by Rachel and Gideon Scott must be false. It's also interesting that they state that "The Family International's success in protecting our children and ensuring their well being has been documented by court-appointed and independent investigations of almost 700 children living in Family communities. After extensive physical, psychological and educational testing, all of the children were found to be healthy with no sign of abuse in a single case. This total absence of abuse speaks for the efforts made to safeguard children in Family communities. We question whether the same statistics could be produced for children in society at large." Yes, if you completely ignore every single case of abuse that is found, it is quite easy to produce false and misleading statistics. The Family claims that "court-appointed and independent investigations" have never uncovered a "sign of abuse" in a "single case." This claim is absolutely false and they know it. It only takes a few moments to find many cases, involving children raised in The Family, where a "sign of abuse" was found. Here are four of those cases. On June 4, 1993, long-time Family member Jean Michel Ardolade was arrested and jailed in Grasse, France on charges of sexually abusing his daughters, then aged 15, 13, and 11 years old, over a period of several years. On the same day, his wife was also arrested and jailed on charges of knowing about the abuse but failing to report the crimes against her children. In May 1997, he was sentenced by the Criminal Court of Alpes-Maritimes in France to 19 years in prison and his wife was sentenced to 3 years in prison.[2] On November 14, 1994, longtime Family member Gerald P. Curran was charged in Henry County, Illinois with with one count of aggravated criminal sexual assault of a child under the age of 13 and one count of aggravated criminal sexual abuse of a child under the age of 13. On July 6, 1995, he pled guilty to one charge in exchange for the second sentence being dismissed and an 11-year prison sentence. [3] On April 23, 1998, Judge James Milliken of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, ordered a child sexually abused by long-time Family member Philip Sloan and others removed from the custody of two members of The Family, Tom and Donna Marchbank. An extensive investigation by court-appointed experts uncovered numerous instances of abuse from 1986 until 1997.[4] In May 2001, the Criminal Court of Aix-en Provence (Bouches-du-Rhone) in France gave a long-time Family member a suspended sentence of 18 months in prison and terminated his parental rights for child sexual abuse and "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" by encouraging his 8-year-old son to engage in sexual play with the children of other Family members and then filming these interactions. The conviction and extraordinarily light sentence was the result of an investigation that began in 1991.[5] References 1. "The Family’s History, Policies, and Beliefs Regarding Sex—Part 3", GN 1236 FD/MM/FM, ML 3673, 2007-10, 2007-12, paragraphs 60-80. http://xfamily.org/index.php/The_Family%E2%80%99s_History%2C_Policies%2C_and_Beliefs_Regarding_Sex 2. http://xfamily.org/index.php/Jean_Michel_Ardolade 3. http://xfamily.org/index.php/Gerald_P._Curran 4. http://xfamily.org/index.php/Philip_Sloan 5. http://www.exfamily.org/art/misc/cult_justice.shtml (reply to this comment)

From Peter Sunday, April 27, 2008, 19:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Oops. There is an error in the second sentence of the seventh paragraph of my comment. That sentence should read as follows: "On July 6, 1995, he pled guilty to one charge in exchange for the second charge being dismissed and an 11-year prison sentence."(reply to this comment)

from GetReal Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 11:47 (Agree/Disagree?) What a joke. It’s very possible that Gideon’s “interpretation” of his time in the family has been slightly influenced by the fact that he used fake family charities to enrich himself. Gid and Rachael live in a million dollar house that was paid for at least in part by a car importation scam. South Africa heavily taxes importation of foreign car except those brought in by charities. Using this loophole Gideon and other cult members have brought hundreds of cars to be sold and obviously pocketing the money for himself. As far as I can remember they did not engage in any charity, unless singing Jesus come into my heart at a couple schools a year qualifies as charity. Cult statements would carry more weight if they weren’t all made by unrepentant criminals. (reply to this comment)

From Randi Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 03:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes and they have like a billion kids... Not very responsible if you ask me(reply to this comment)

from Jailbird Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 11:34 (Agree/Disagree?) What nonsense. (reply to this comment)

from Lance Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 10:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh joy! Another dillwad family spokesperson who can't distiguish between libel and slander. If they are going to use the libel defense they should at least use the right word. (reply to this comment)

from so sad Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 09:39 (Agree/Disagree?) "...we feel we must speak up so that the general public does not misjudge our wonderful, well documented Christian work throughout Africa on the basis of this book and its allegations. " there is the motive. losing money! (reply to this comment)

from gosh! Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 20:37 (Agree/Disagree?) It doesn't matter that anything was ever "ARTICULATED." What matters is that criminal acts against children were committed and NEVER brought to justice. (reply to this comment)

from Samuel Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 20:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Just curious, does anyone know what would happen if we called the phone numbers in the article? Who would answer, is it a Public Relations home or something? (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Saturday, April 26, 2008, 20:23 (Agree/Disagree?) oooooooooooh lets all call collect.(reply to this comment)

from cheeks Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 20:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I read the book and I did not feel at any time that there were any gross inaccuracies in it. As a matter of fact I was one of the detention teens that was in the Jumbo. So I remember very clearly what went on there. I was also molested in Portugal when I was thirteen years old by deaf Gabriel, if I remember correctly it was 92, when I reported the molestation to the shepherds I was blamed for not stopping him. My parents were also told that I was molested as they lived in another home 150 miles away and they never came to see if I was alright, and they never asked for me and my sisters one who was younger than me to be sent back to them. The Family has a pattern for protecting the abusers and maligning the victims. To the Family. We are your children, there is little you have not done to us in the name of God. You have beaten and starved us, you have locked us up, you have sexually molested us, you have prayed over us to exercise the demons we did not have inside us. You have bound us, isolated us, humiliated us, and denied us the basic rights we have as humans. You still cannot see that what you did was wrong. You still cannot seek forgiveness, instead you deny what happened. You justify your actions by your absurd belief that what you did was done in our best interest and in the name of your God. You reject reality and substitute your own. Face what you have done and the shame that comes with it because we will never stop. We will never tire and we will not fail. We have the truth on our side and all you have is delusion. (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Saturday, April 26, 2008, 20:17 (Agree/Disagree?) I wanted to add that I am so sorry Falcon that this was the best response the Family could give to you and your sisters brave women who have been to hell and came back to tell their story.(reply to this comment)

From Falcon Sunday, April 27, 2008, 05:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Not to worry, Cheeks. As I never carried any expectation of an adequate response, there is no disappointment, just a good dose of ambivalence if that's the best they can come up with. (reply to this comment)

from Big Sister Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 18:00 (Agree/Disagree?) What! Now TF is dedicated to improving people's EDUCATION? First time I've seen that claim. How about they just take care of educating my nieces and nephews and never-mind claiming they can educate other people. (reply to this comment)

from What hogwash! Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 16:49 (Agree/Disagree?) "during a short period of our history our policies in this regard were not clearly articulated" Oh, no. During a long period of your history, your policies in this regard were VERY CLEARLY articulated. (reply to this comment)

From afflick Sunday, April 27, 2008, 08:25 (Agree/Disagree?) 'Not Without My Sister' was a memoire. A collection of personal experiences by three sisters. It is so weird that the Scotts try to attack personal experiences. Yes, Family homes can be visited (if they can be found) and whoever visits one can take away an experience. But that visit does not detract from the life experiences of the authors. Nor does it take away my own. This is what I think The Family doesn't get about this new wave of 'detractors.' We are not academics or deprogrammers or parents of cult members. We are nothing that they have ever experienced before. We are their children. When we say "I was molested", "I was abused systematically growing up in The Family" it doesn't matter that The Family can trot out fifty kids who say, "I was not abused." It doesn't take way my experience. I still had MY experience. While in the past, The Family could point to outsider critics and say that they did not have true perspective of what The Family was all about, they can't say that about us. We lived with them, we experienced it all. Pure conjecture: Gideon and Rachel Scott have, what? 12 or 13 children. Their oldest is about my age or a bit older. Their youngest is probably a pre-teen. I would bet that their older children had quite a different childhood than the younger children. Especially since the older ones were in India in the '80s (a hotspot of child abuse). If they all got together and the younger ones said, "I was not abused" and the olders ones were, who's right? The answer is both. One child's experience cannot negate another's. And that is what's so strange about The Family's reaction. They are still using the old tools, the ones that worked before their worst detractors were their children. When their critics were outsiders, it worked to say, "But that is not our experience." Because those who had not lived it could only speculate at the abuse. But here's the thing. Now there are critics who HAVE lived The Family experience and it no longer works to say we don't have a good handle on what it means to be raised in The Family. We do. And The Family cannot come up with a good argument against our life experiences. (reply to this comment)