Moving On | Choose your lifeMoving On | Choose your life
Safe Passage Foundation - Support to youth raised in high demand organizations


Saturday, January 31, 2009    

Home | New Content | Statistics | Games | FAQs

Getting Support : Speaking Out

More on the "apology"

from Thorwald - Friday, March 07, 2008
accessed 1523 times

See the internal version of the "apology".

In December 2007, The Family International published a 3-part GN series titled "The Family's History, Policies, and Beliefs Regarding Sex." The third part of the series included a section titled "An Open Letter of Apology from Maria and Peter." On January 6, 2008, an unknown individual anonymously posted an excerpt from this section on the web site NewDayNews.com. The excerpt was later reposted and discussed on other web sites including ExFamily.org and MovingOn. In an attempt to verify the authenticity of the purported "open letter," the editors of xFamily.org contacted representatives of The Family International and asked them to confirm or deny the letter's authenticity. As the the emails between xFamily.org and The Family International indicate, representatives of The Family International refused to confirm or deny the authenticity of the letter, refused to answer two additional questions about the letter and did not reply to a later message sent by the xFamily.org editors. xFamily.org later obtained enough information and documents from other sources to verify that the "Open Letter" was indeed an excerpt from an official Family publication.

See: http://xfamily.org/index.php/An_Open_Letter_of_Apology_from_Maria_and_Peter

Reader's comments on this article

Add a new comment on this article

from exfamily
Wednesday, March 12, 2008 - 02:56

(Agree/Disagree?)
A comment from a TF member about the distribution of this apology:

"[it came] with a notice from WS saying: to make it available to exmembers we're in contact with."
(reply to this comment)
From quick poll
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 14:41

(
Agree/Disagree?)
How many here heard about/saw this "apology" from a member you had contact with vs as it was "an unconfirmed leaked" through this or other sites?(reply to this comment
from Nancy
Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 18:14

Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

I'm torn by this idea of apology because if they really apologized, not the rubbish above, and said something along the lines of, "You were beaten throughout your childhood, your body bears the physical scars, you were sexually molested, you had to watch while your siblings and friends were beaten, you were deprived of a proper education, you were denied medical care and you were robbed of your childhood, we acknowledge that and cannot begin to make amends, but we take responsibility that it happened as a direct results of our actions as the leader of the organization that committed these acts, and we would like you to know, however little it may help, that we are truly sorry. We are sorry for all the pain we have caused you and those you love. If you would allow us, we would like to know how we might begin to help, if it is even possible, to make some sort of amends for all you suffered. Sincerely, Karen Zerby and Chris Smith aka, etc." If I received something along those lines addressed personally to me, I can't say I would disregard it. It would mean something to me. It would be a step. Because isn't it the real reason most of us have made efforts to have our stories heard? Haven't many of us wanted, in the very least, to have our suffering as children acknowledged? I know I have.

I've been a pretty strong supporter of all things anti-cult, but I can't say my heart is so hard that it would not accept a real apology, real being the operative word. I would like it more for my younger brothers and sisters than for me. I would like them to take some responsibility for how my own siblings have had to suffer in adulthood as a result of their treatment as children. I would like an acknowledgement that their priorities that they drilled into my mother's head that "saving the world" was more important than saving her own children were screwed up.

If they began a campaign of saving the world that began at home and tending to the needs of their children for once, not just the little ones, but the grown ones, on whose backs they raised their cult, I would support it and support them. Everything else would be water under the bridge. Seriously. If they're reading this, I mean it. Consider a project entitled "Making Amends with Our Own" or "Looking After Ones Own House" in which the cult proactively sought out their own grown children and helping to rectify the harm caused from their childhood by providing access to medical care, education, job training, substance abuse counseling, etc., and they would lose one of their biggest outspoken detractors, me, because I would support them.

But, the cult didn't even send me a copy of the above letter entitled "an apology," so I'm not holding my breath that they would ever send me or anyone a real one.
(reply to this comment)

From judy
Friday, March 14, 2008, 19:05

Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

Nancy. I am appalled by you total hard hearted mean and vindictive nature that you would actually call the city attourney and try to get my son in trouble for whatever disagreements you guys may have. Trying to destroy another persons life out of pure hatred is in my book just not something anyone of any character at all would do.

There is an expression in the Bible about why God hated the Ammorites, and wanted them totally annhilated when the Israelites went into the promised land. When the Jews were in the wilderness they attacked the weak people at the end of the line the elderly and the handicapped who could not defend themselves. In otherwords they played very dirty. Kicking someone when they are down. God help you.

And this is not Don coming under another name. This is his mother, and when you attack my son you attack the "Apple of my eye." I even told his sister about what you did, and she said, "What a mean thing to do."(reply to this comment

From Tester
Monday, March 17, 2008, 11:07

Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy is about as far away from having a mean and vindictive nature as you and your son are nuts!

After the way he treated Nancy and what he did to her I am not surprised that she would do anything to protect herself and son from your son's insanity.
(reply to this comment
From MegaGroan
Friday, March 14, 2008, 23:22

Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4 out of 5(
Agree/Disagree?)

1) Judy, it was the Amalekites who attacked the Israelites on their way out of Egypt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amalek

2) This web site is for SGA's. If you have a problem with Nancy, why don't you take that up with her? There is no reason for your comment to be posted publicly for all to read.

3) I resent being forced to be an audience for your family drama. (No, I don't know Don, and have no involvement in this issue. Don is a SGA, and as long as he keeps the Terms of Use I welcome his opinions.)

4) I also strongly resent you, or any FGA attempting to give us Bible classes.(reply to this comment

From Jules
Friday, March 14, 2008, 23:18

Average visitor agreement is 4.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 4.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
We are not going to open this topic up again.

Judy, this is not an appropriate forum for you to express your disapproval of Nancy. Please refer to the Terms of Use, which state:
"If there is a personal matter or disagreement that occurs on the site or otherwise, and is not related to being born and/or raised in The Family, please do not use this web site as a forum for feuding. Such content, if deemed unrelated to the purpose of the site, will be removed." --TOU, Section C,. Point 4 http://www.movingon.org/terms.asp

Discussion over this situation went on previously on this site for months and months, with the result being that it escalated to rather extreme real world consequences and horrific stress for the individuals involved. I fail to see the upside of this continuing on here.

If anyone really must give their viewpoint or personal details on this topic, there is Myspace, facebook, personal blogs, etc. that would be much better suited to this.

Thank you. (reply to this comment
From Actually
Monday, March 24, 2008, 21:18

(
Agree/Disagree?)

Myspace doesn't allow this type of content.

http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=misc.terms(reply to this comment

From Samuel
Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 04:39

(Agree/Disagree?)

Nerither does Moving On!

So I guess you're just out of luck.(reply to this comment

From notyetdrunk
Friday, March 14, 2008, 21:23

Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
LoL.Judy is as crazy as a June bug. She told people to pray for Don as the judge had the spirit of Jezabel. Seeing as Nancy is not allowed to discuss her disagreement with Don. His idiot mother has come to defend him.

Go away Judy, we don't need or want you here go find another site where someone can tolerate your idiotic rantings. Go pray down the prophet Elisha or something.(reply to this comment
From notyetdrunk
Friday, March 14, 2008, 21:16

(Agree/Disagree?)
LoL.Judy is as crazy as a June bug. She told people to pray for Don as the judge had the spirit of Jezabel. Seeing as Nancy is not allowed to discuss her disagreement with Don. His idiot mother has come to defend him.

Go away Judy, we don't need or want you here go find another site where someone can tolerate your idiotic rantings. Go pray down the prophet Elisha or something.(reply to this comment
From Cringing not to respond to this...
Friday, March 14, 2008, 21:02

(
Agree/Disagree?)
Nancy or Don or somebody had better to reply to this, because I promised I was going to stay out of this, and I am just dying! (reply to this comment
From Randi
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 02:51

(Agree/Disagree?)

I aggree with you and very well and beautifully written. That is how they need to apologize. This apology here sounds like, they're doing it because they have to, and its written in such a way to prevent them from being pin pointed in a court of law...They need to take that risk, in order to make things right in this life, or at all.

They need to make a confession so to speak: "We did it, we're sorry we hurt you. What can we do to make things right?"

I also think that Zerby was rather caught up in Bergs maddness and psychopathic behaviour. (Im not excussing her, but I am acknowledging a possible fact) But then she needs to say that: "I was in an abusive relationship, with a very manipulative and sexually perverted man, an alcaholic who I felt presured me into doing things I didnt really believe in or want to do." This I could understand and sympathize with a little. If she is going to place the blame on her deceased husband... she needs to denounce him...She needs to show and prove why she is not as responsible as she claims.(reply to this comment

From Jailbird
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 08:12

Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
Having had the misfortune of observing Zerby and others like her, she certainly had a pre-disposition to be manipulated given the strictness of her background etc. ...

However, she's a very deceptive, power-hungry person. She knew what she was doing when she was feeding the younglings to the monster and beating them when they didn't comply.

Berg would have never been able to get away with the crimes he committed against my family were it not for her facilitating his crimes and hand-feeding him his victims, including her own children.

In my view, she is just as culpable, if not more so than he.

(reply to this comment
from Phoenixkidd
Tuesday, March 11, 2008 - 10:00

(Agree/Disagree?)

Any attempt by cult-leaders to apologize is futile. It's kind of like the Nazi Regime or Japanese Imperialism apologizing for it's atrocities and then they go right back to doing war crimes. The cult's isolationism and fundamentalism continues to this very day and keeps raising many more hundreds of children that grow up totally unprepared for the real world in which they soon will live.


(reply to this comment)

from jezz
Friday, March 07, 2008 - 23:19

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
"We apologize to you, our former members, if you FELT stigmatized upon leaving the Family, or if you didn't get all the help and support you FELT you needed or wished you would have had."
Hmm I love the way that they use the word FELT. Yes, they're very sorry if you FELT that you needed help and support. The same way that they're sorry if you FELT hurt after being beat, molested or raped etc. blah....
(reply to this comment)
from jezz
Friday, March 07, 2008 - 23:19

(Agree/Disagree?)
"We apologize to you, our former members, if you FELT stigmatized upon leaving the Family, or if you didn't get all the help and support you FELT you needed or wished you would have had."
Hmm I love the way they use the word FELT. Yes, they're very sorry if you FELT that you needed help and support. The same way that they're sorry if you FELT hurt after being beat, molested or raped etc. blah....
(reply to this comment)
from Jailbird
Friday, March 07, 2008 - 14:12

Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

Yes, it's complete deception and ass-clownery, what you can expect these letters were vetted through attorneys -- attorneys some of the slimiest characters known to mankind.

Heh heh.
(reply to this comment)

from Randi
Friday, March 07, 2008 - 06:48

(Agree/Disagree?)


The apology seems ok... but then they put the complete and sole responsibility on a dead man...that is pretty lame... way too convenient...!! First they say they're leaders... but they hardly sound like ones who are ready to take any responsibility. It sounds like the target group... is the press, lawyers etc... not the victims.
(reply to this comment)

From JB
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 07:23

Average visitor agreement is 1.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 1.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 1.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 1.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 1.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)


I agree! I think it's a pretty ok apology, but it wouldn't hurt if they took a bit more personal responsibility to themselves. It's way too convenient to blame everything on David Berg.

I also wonder though, if they did apologise even more sincerely, would it be accepted, or would they be given any credit for it by former members.

If I had done something that I was sincerely sorry for and wanted forgiveness for, but knew that my apology wouldn't be accepted and most likely only thrown back in my face, I would probably also be hesitant and cautious about how and where I apologised.

It's probably harder, really, to apologise than to accept an apology, and that's why I think Jesus didn't say anything about "If we don't apologise for our trespasses then our Heavenly Father will not forgive us!", but He said "If we forgive not others for their trespasses, then neither will our Heavenly Father forgive us for ours!"

Once a person has apologised then in God's eyes they are forgiven really, because if we confess our sins HE is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from ALL unrighteousness!" So, when God has forgiven, and we don't forgive, then the only person we are hurting is ourselves!

(reply to this comment

From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 04:16

(Agree/Disagree?)


Another thing you'll find is that Jesus did not make the forgiveness of others' trespasses conditional on their apology, sincere or otherwise! He just said that if we don't forgive others their trespasses then our Heavenly Father will not forgive us!

If God thinks someone should be dealt with for something then He will deal with them regardless of whether or not we chose to forgive them. But WE are told to forgive if we want forgiveness!

(reply to this comment

From Jailbird
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 20:24

Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
What a bogus opinion you've expressed.

I think it's a horrible apology. It's compounded by Borobitch and others making statements to media groups that they offered survivors services as she did in the LA Times Article of March 2005, if I'm not mistaken. Who, pray tell, has ever been offered any help by the group or their minions?

Since you're so big on the Bible, how about a little Matthew 3:8,"Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance?"

You can't imprison someone or groups of someones, prevent them from contacting their biological family, rape them, their sisters, friends and all the rest then say, too bad, we're sorry.

Zerby and Smith aren't sorry for what happened or what they did, as evidenced by their continued dishonesty and cover-up. They're sorry they got caught, and they're sorry they're loosing income as a result, and the fact that they're constantly having to answer questions with lies about their misdeeds.

I'd consider accepting an honest apology, this is not such an apology.

(reply to this comment
From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 00:55

Average visitor agreement is 2 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)


"Fruits meet for repentance".....like the Charter, for example, and the rules that are in place to protect young people, and the effort being made, however insufficient it may be right now, to reach out to former members.

I agree, more could and probably should be done, but sitting around on one's ass demanding more and more apologies, I dunno, kinda strikes a bit of an odd note with me. What do you think!?

(reply to this comment

From J_P
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 14:35

(Agree/Disagree?)

The Charter was a late response that only every had the possibility (nothing firm) to offer some protection to later generations. That offers nothing at all to the multitudes that were harmed in earlier generations of kids. Secondly, they never went far enough. If there is true illegal activity (IF???, more like WHEN!!!) then they should have built in legal protections for those harmed to go after their abusers and not rely on the completely untrained, unskilled family "investigators" to decide on a punishment then further punish the victims by not allowing any legal action to be taken, in fact punish them if they choose to do so.

Secondly, I dont know what you mean by "sitting around on one's ass demanding more". I know many here are very successful and this site is a mere 10-20 mins a day stopover. Any suggestion that I (or we as it applies) allow the cult to dominate our minds and actions is an insult to our ability to move on. This doesn't mean that we ignore it and walk away, but the fact remains, it happened, it shouldnt have, they should be sorry for it and unreservedly apologise. Simple. Until that happens, no family apologist should have any right to lecture us how we should react to the fake and insincere "apologies"(reply to this comment

From lotstoforget
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 01:22

(Agree/Disagree?)
I’m glad you mentioned the Charter, JB. It was one of those “coerced“, back against the wall, “apologies”, just like this recent one. It was Judge Ward putting the gun on their heads and saying produce a document that will protect the rights of your members – or else! It wasn’t something they produced of their own free will. Didn’t know that? It’s an undisputed fact corroborated by all those attending the court case and by James Penn. Every exer knows this, while hardly anyone in the Family today is aware of this. Why is that? What do you think? Thanks for listening.(reply to this comment
From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 15:57

Average visitor agreement is 1 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)


Fair enough. If any Family apologist comes along you be sure to point that out to them, ok!

I think also there's a whole lot of generalisation and lumping of issues together, in seeking apologies. I as a Christian don't expect any apologies to ever be forthcoming from tf for their obedience in obeying God's Word, going into all the world, forsaking all to follow Jesus or putting God first in their lives, and inevitably when they had children endeavouring to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord! Nor can you expect them to apologise for, as poor missionaries preaching the gospel, not always having lots to spend on said children, or choosing (unsuccessfully in some cases...more successfully in others, as it turns out) to experiment with home-schooling, especially in their striving to "come out from among them and be seperate, saith the Lord".

The things you probably can expect sincere apologies for are cruel and excessive punishment, sexual abuse, and sexual exploitation, etc!

Some things are life (ok, granted not Western life...but as westerners we've come to take some things for granted that others would count as a priviledge...higher education...or in some cases even basic education!), and life is to be lived according to the best efforts and ideals of each generation. Retrospective judgement of previous generations by the standards of later generations is hardly fair or produces just and fair conclusions! Sorry, but that's just facts of life!

(reply to this comment

From J_P
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 16:44

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

Firstly, as I am not a Christian, I reject any argument which is based on christian philosphy. That is your/their reasoning only and cannot be used as a universal truth or basis of reasoning.

Secondly, I dont recall asking for an apology about not having lots to spend on me. While you say one can expect an apology for certain things and not others, it is only the real abuses and illegal activity that require sincere apologies. Apologizing for the rest wouldnt hurt either as it would be nice to know that they are sorry for their choice to live in a third world country with more hygiene, lack of proper education, etc. Remember, most of this is their choice, not forced on them. It was forced on use however and we were punished for questioning that lifestyle in the slightest, so they should be ready to apologise for all of that.

I will say that my mother has fully and unreservedly apologized to me for raising me and my siblings in the lifestyle we were brought up in. She knows it was wrong and is truly remorseful for it. I fully accepted that apology and only wish more would do the same. While she never directly abused me in the way many other adults did, she realises that leaving me in that environment was wrong, full stop. She thought it was the right thing at the time but it is now painfully clear that it was not. That is the kind of realisation that most of our parents and "caretakers" sadly do not ever reach. If they did, many would be in a much better place in all their lives I'm sure.(reply to this comment

From apologies--apologies my ass
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 01:04

(
Agree/Disagree?)

Apologies are (often) just meaningless words. How about some retribution for starters?(reply to this comment

From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 01:08

Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)


Thank you for making my point! See when it all boils down to it, it seems like revenge is at the bottom of this all!

You only discredit yourself and all your lofty words with statements like this!

(reply to this comment

From cheeks
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 12:57

(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think revenge is a bad thing. Imagine if we did to them for one day what they did to us our whole childhood I don't have a problem with it. Doesn't the Bible say 'Vengeance is mine thus saith the Lord.'

I don't think taking them to court is really a bad thing. Some of the people are monsters. Zerby is a monster, why should we not seek justice? (reply to this comment
From capulet
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 09:23

(Agree/Disagree?)
ya whats the chance of a class action(reply to this comment
From I think my display of emotion
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 01:25

(
Agree/Disagree?)

(anger) was called for considering...

and it wasnít necessarily directed towards you.(reply to this comment

From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 01:11

Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 2.5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)


PS. Sorry if that sounded a bit too much of a generalisation. Since it was posted anonymously I don't know whose lofty words (if any) it discredits.

But if anyone harbours such sentiments, and yet writes lofty words about sincere apologies, then the shoe fits!

(reply to this comment

From this was my first comment on this artcle
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 01:20

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(
Agree/Disagree?)

My point is: actions speak louder then worlds. There is nothing wrong with wanting justice. (reply to this comment

From J_P
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 16:48

(Agree/Disagree?)

One apologizes because they are sorry and regret what they have done, not because the know they will be forgiven. I tell me kids: Don't apologize unless you are actually sorry, regret what was done and intend to make the effort not to do it again, otherwise its meaningless.

In addition, an apology is not dependant on the apology being accepted, so whether they feel it would have been met with hostility or open arms is irrelevant if they truly meant it.

As has been mentioned above and before, there are too many qualifiers in this "apology" for it to be real. IF you FELT hurt. Either they apologize for "hurting us" or not. Either they apologize for facilitating the various abuses many suffered or they do not. Either they apologize for denying us the chance to a proper education or they do not. I've moved on and do not "seek revenge" but I can't stand being insulted with fake apologies and half attempts to justify what happened, or sweep it aside with a note to the group only and not even try to officially communicate it to the people it should be targeted at.

Recently the Australian government apologized to the indigenous aboriginals in Australia for the so-called "Stolen Generations" who were removed from their families and communities as children. Though the policy is not under debate here (good:many were removed from horrid conditions / bad:there were cases of abuse in some of the institutions the children were removed to), the fact was their apology was not conditional and simply said "for the hurt, etc: we are sorry", not IF you didn't like it, we are sorry you didn't like it.

I for one didn't feel that the government can't properly apologize on my behalf since I did nothing wrong (before I was born) and it was a government policy, not community action, but the point stands.

In the case of the groups supposed apology, by blaming it on a dead man, they are clearly implying that they did nothing wrong, it was all him. Nothing needs to be said there, we all know what happened, who condoned it, so stop insulting our intelligence.(reply to this comment

From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 04:12

(Agree/Disagree?)


Another thing is that it's easy (or at least easier) to apologise generations later for something that you personally had no knowledge of, or that didn't happen on your watch, than it is for something a little more close to home!

I'm not saying that that is right, I'm simply pointing out a little fact of human nature!

(reply to this comment

From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 03:45

(Agree/Disagree?)


Which is why I said that IMO, they should take more responsibility themselves for their part, and not lay the blame solely on Berg.

I agree that the sentence "If you felt" is a bit of a cop-out and an insult to intelligence, since they KNOW that abuse happened and KNOW how many ex-members feel.

However due to the hostile nature of many detractors, and because they are also responsible for the Lord's Work, which I have no desire to see destroyed, I am in a bit of dilema as to how much I personally can confidently say they should do more! God would not give them a congratulations for being plain stupid and wilfully endangering the flock or harming the Kingdom, just to please some people whom, by their own admission, are out for revenge!

(reply to this comment

From J_P
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 14:26

(Agree/Disagree?)

I re-read my comment and there might be room for confusion.

Firstly, I am not saying that because the old man has died that they should not apologise for anything he did. I am using that as an example of when a later generation shouldn't. Further to that, it was the government apologising, and as long as they do that on behalf of the government thats fine, as long as its not on behalf of the people of Australia.

Second, they (the current leadership) knew full and well what was going on before it had a chance to cause real danger and they let it happen, caused it to happen themselves, then tried to cover it up and excuse it after it happend. Its completely ridiculous to say that Berg was the sole responsible. What about the edtiors, the publishers, the typst and all those "faucets" who perpetuated this shit? If they had all up and left when it got illegal, there would have been no abuse. This makes it clear that they DID have something to personally apologise for and chose instead to use the "if you felt" and "it wasn't me" apology which completely inadequate.(reply to this comment

From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 16:12

(Agree/Disagree?)


When what got illegal? Printing explicit pictures or telling the story of the life of Davidito? I doubt you'll find any law that even if these "faucets" had wanted to refer to, could specifically prohibit freedom of press or speech!

If you're refering to illegal actions, what you might find is that most of these laws that protect children's welfare are relatively new and were not enforced as local law in most places the family resided.

If you are talking about actions against God's laws, then you'll have to trust God to redress transgressions or alleged transgressions of His law...after all...if it's His law and He's the Judge, then you have to, as in any court of law, look to the Judge for His ruling!

Then there's that little "problem" of our Advocate with the Father! Shuks! :P

(reply to this comment

From cheeks
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 20:22

(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow. Time to put down the crack pipe dude. Crack is wack. God's law of love was something Berg cooked up to fuel or excuse his perversions. While Christ showed love he also showed that God is no pushover. I can find tolerance for peoples lack of belief in God, I cannot find tolerance for people who take the Word of God and twist it to fuel the fire of their insanities and perversions. You have just stepped over a very clear line, a line that your delusions about the Family has not allowed you to see.

You have become as dangerous as they are because you cannot see that what happened to Ricky was abuse, what happened to him is illegal in any country you go to both then and now. Nowhere in the Bible will you ever find that child sex is permitted. You need to be much more careful in your beliefs and not just think that because Christ was merciful in some situations he will be merciful in all.

As far as the laws of man go like Sammy already pointed out, Christ was respectful of the laws in the land he lived in. Render unto Ceasar the things which are Ceasars and unto God the things which are Gods. He let the thief be crucified beside him after he forgave him of his sins. So don't for a minute think that because Christ forgave him he did not also have to be punished here. (reply to this comment
From J_P
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 16:51

(Agree/Disagree?)

Sounds like you are defending the actions of the publishers of material that is clearly illegal to most of society, showing explicit images of adults in illegal activity with underage children. That is a dangerous thing to do and I question any argument you make if you have that mindset. You have crossed a line from devils advocate to simple advocate.

To the best of my knowledge, freedom of press or speech does not extend to advocating abuse of minors, which is clearly what these publications were for. Further to that, many of these individuals were witness to these abuses themselves. If they had said something, or just up and left, it would have put a dent in the cult leaders ability to perpetuate their ideas and actions.

Since there is no God, then there are none of his laws that would interest me. Same goes for your problem with the advocate.(reply to this comment

From Jules
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 21:08

(Agree/Disagree?)
It also sounded very much to me as though JB was endorsing the sexual abuse of children and child pornography.
He has been blocked from this website before for this very issue and he has now been blocked again.
As a number of participants have reiterated, this website is open to all those born and raised in the group, including those still in. However, given the abuse that did indisputably did occur in TF, it is not okay for anyone to condone or endorse the horrific acts that occured. http://www.movingon.org/faqs.asp#12


On a related note, there was a discussion on the Terms of Use of this website before they went into effect. http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=4&Cat=32&ID=4091 Since enacting what is there seems to be an issue with some participants here, I invite anyone with objections to the TOU, or questions on free speech on MovingOn, the admin role, etc. to reopen that thread and post their concerns there.(reply to this comment
From Voice in the Wilderness...
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 03:29

(
Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, I do have a little problem with blocking posters who voice contradictory positions to the status quo here, under, what seems to me at least, the guise that they „endorse sexual abuse“. I came a little late into this discussion and thus don’t know what specific posts you are referring too. However, from what I’ve read of the remaining posts of JB, there seems little likelihood that he/she would endorse such views.

If this board starts banning everyone with dissenting views, aren’t we coming to the same conclusions than the MyConclusionists – or the Family et al. ? Namely, that we don’t want to be confronted with the fact that there may be alter-realities to our perceived universe, or even just simply different opinions out there? It stands to argue that we have then created our very own Vandari! Personally, I don’t think a stance like that serves the participants of this board too well.

That said, I do believe that JB still is firmly rooted in Family doctrine. It’s quite apparent. But so were we all some time ago. I’d say let’s unfreeze JB and have constructive dialogue with him/her. JB may thus sooner or later become one of us too. Isn’t that part of our mission here, aside from just ranting and raving and having fun – to help those of our comrades still stuck in the group, and still in denial and under delusion, to find a way out?
(reply to this comment
From afflick
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 08:11

(Agree/Disagree?)

"I came a little late into this discussion and thus donít know what specific posts you are referring too. However, from what Iíve read of the remaining posts of JB, there seems little likelihood that he/she would endorse such views."

Here's an idea: why don't you scroll down and read all JB's comments before you venture your opinion on whether they promote sexual abuse.

JB's comments:

"When what got illegal? Printing explicit pictures or telling the story of the life of Davidito? I doubt you'll find any law that even if these "faucets" had wanted to refer to, could specifically prohibit freedom of press or speech! If you're refering to illegal actions, what you might find is that most of these laws that protect children's welfare are relatively new and were not enforced as local law in most places the family resided."

Printing explicit pictures and a storyline to detail the sexual abuse of a little boy is horribly wrong. While specific laws against it have been slower to arise than the technology used to disseminate it, child abuse is not a matter of debate. Is it legal? Was it legal at the time of the abuse? What specific laws were on the books and in what jurisdiction? Who cares? That is not the issue. The issue is the rape of this little boy, the long-term damage he suffered, the fact that his was not an isolated case but a how-to manuel for our exploitation.

There are misconceptions about free speech. Many thing that "free" means they are protected to say whatever they want, whenever. For instance, if one wants to shout obcenties about how Blacks in a public square, they will quickly learn that not all speech is protected. Hate speech is not. Speech promoting violence against others is not. Speech (and publications) promoting the joys of sexually abusing children is not protected.

Nor should it be protected on this site, a site full of those directly affected by child abuse.

So, to recap: promoting child abuse is not protected speech, excusing child abuse to the survivors of such sexual attrocities is not protected speech.

JB, apparently, has a history of being an abuser. I am uncomfortable with this but do not think it is enough to ban him. His hateful words directed to excusing sexual abusers of children, however, may be just the thing.(reply to this comment

From vix
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 07:24

(Agree/Disagree?)

Why comment anonymously?

There is a lot more to this issue than what transpired in this thread. A lot of what you say is sensible, but it really doesn't apply to this situation. When someone comes here and tells victims of sexual abuse 'let's face it, you enjoyed it', I think I have a right to say that I don't want to have to listen to his drivel.


(reply to this comment

From vix
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 07:28

(Agree/Disagree?)

Ach, I thought I had put 'tells victims of sexual abuse *something to the effect of*...' To clarify, I think neez' quote of 'they probably wanted it just as much' is closer to what was actually said.

(reply to this comment

From J_P
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 04:38

(Agree/Disagree?)

I'm all for free speech and debate. You should probably re-read the post from JB above however if you honestly think he/she was falsely banned "under the guise", if I can quote (not my words):

"When what got illegal? Printing explicit pictures or telling the story of the life of Davidito?" Clearly he is questioning whether printing explicit pictures of children is illegal.

"If you're refering to illegal actions, what you might find is that most of these laws that protect children's welfare are relatively new and were not enforced as local law in most places the family resided." Again, using the excuse that because the child protection laws were not enforced, JB appears to think somehow makes it not illegal?
This also goes beyond the common sense test and begs the question why it even must be deemed illegal (by law, not just by custom or enforcement) before some will stop defending it. Any decent human should be disgusted at what happened and not seek to defend it.
Obviously there are plenty of contrary opinions here and they are either tolerated with varying degrees of graciousness or responsed to vigorously, but there are some lines that musn't be crossed without some form of response from the admins, and they have clearly acted here.(reply to this comment

From neez
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 04:35

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(
Agree/Disagree?)
He didn't leave TF recently, he came on here a few years ago babbling the same crap you see here.

He was eventually banned for condoning underage sex. I seem to remember him commenting along the lines of 'the underage girls probably wanted it just as much'.

I'm sure someone else could link you to that comment(s). The guys got a fkn screw loose.

As for his repeated urges to come back here to preach at us, well you know what the definition of crazy is.(reply to this comment
From steam
Thursday, March 13, 2008, 04:15

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
"voice in the wilderness" I have a problem with anonymous posters coming on and using the words "us" about some group of former members who seem to have a monolithic view which you have a handle on and can supposedly articulate for. JB was a childhood friend of mine, who sadly has spiraled down to where he is a stronger advocate of The Families murky past and open encouragement of pedophilia, than the Family themselves.
He has come on this site in this thread no less and said that publishing the "childcare manual" The Davidito book, which is a vile compilation of child porn and encouragement of pedophilia with tragic known consequences, falls under free speech.
Sorry but it does not, and should not, and further it is a violation of the terms of use. Note that JB has in the last few days written many offensive and ridiculous things, none of which got any action out of the Admins, however this line is clearly delineated and he insists on crossing it. Thank you admin for not allowing a free for all against defenseless children.(reply to this comment
From Samuel
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 16:51

(Agree/Disagree?)
Are you serious? Having sex with two year olds (and under) was certainly illegal at the time The Davidito Book was published, at least in the United States. Child pornography was also illegal in most countries, though I'm sure many did not actively enforce their laws. Just thinking of this, I am reminded of the book about Techi, as there were also pictures of her as a little child scantily clothed, and Berg remarked that a picture like that could be dangerous as they were living in South Africa where the laws on child porn were apparently stricter than they had been in Europe (however, the picture was still published, which just goes to show you that they knew the law, and were trying to get around it).(reply to this comment
From cheeks
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 12:50

(Agree/Disagree?)
I think you would be happier in the Family than you are out here. I think you should re-join. Then according to Family rules you would not be allowed on this site and we would not have to listen to your dribble.(reply to this comment
From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 15:36

(Agree/Disagree?)


I'm touched that you are so concerned for my happiness! :P

(reply to this comment

From cheeks
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 20:28

(Agree/Disagree?)
No it was not concern for your welfare but self serving as your dribble has now truly annoyed me. Either go back to your crack pipe and leave us alone. Or rejoin the Family and leave us alone. Your opinions hold no merit and your twisted belief in God only damns you more.(reply to this comment
From cheeks
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 10:54

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
It is not a good apology. You apologize when you are sorry not for getting caught. You accept the blame for what you have done and not blame someone who is dead. You look your actions in the face and acknowledge you have done wrong. If you felt, does not belong in an apology. They are not repentant for their sins, if they were repentant they would acknowledge their transgressions and their sins would ever be before them. They would not play the blame game and dance around the issue. Let us hear what sins she is sorry for.

One more thing just because she has Gods forgiveness in the ever-after does not mean she does not have to pay for her crimes here. My kid may be sorry she hit her sister but she is still getting a time out.

Like I said before you need to stop twisting the scripture to fit your beliefs, because if you want to play that game everyone here has enough knowledge of the bible they can play right back. To be perfectly honest, I the Christian here, have had enough of your self-righteous bullshit I can't take anymore. Stop quoting scripture and start acting like a Christian.(reply to this comment
From Randi
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 09:31

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

Im not sure if this is the right site for you! No offence... We really dont want people justifying a couple of psychopaths. I dont care if its hard for them to apologize or not... they have destroyed lives. Apologising fixes nothing anyway. It does not concern them if whether or not people forgive them...they should still apologize and admit to their crimes against humanity. Putting the responsibility on a dead man is pathetic and small. Saying: "If you felt.. etc" is putting the subjective responsibility on us... its crazy... The objective fact is that EVERYONE feels hurt, when they are being beaten, deprived of food, education and family. Made to copulate at the innocent age of 11 with horny hairy stinky uncles!!! Using the word IF is ridiculous. In any case, in the real world, it doesnt work like that... People who commit heinous crimes against humanity... don't just get off the hook by say "sorry if you felt hurt by me torturing you and your kids" or "Sorry if you felt hurt IF (you feel) I raped you when you were a small child" (for example) and then just go about your marry way.. No, You go to prison...Get executed or something!!! They keep living off everyones measly taxes, eating nice healthy food, living in a nice house...making love to Jesus and the various unsuspecting young citizens of their home etc... Speaking of religion, if Jesus smashed a couple bird cages because people were making a mockery of the temple, imagine what He would have done and would do in David, Zerby and Peters "temple" huh?? The money collected from the poor missionaries in Nigeria would be flung all over the place... their sex chambers would be smashed... They would be in TROUBLE! T R O U B L E.

MMM KAY JB?(reply to this comment

From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 00:51

(Agree/Disagree?)


None taken.

I see your point and I do agree that a sincerer apology is in order, and should be forthcoming.

I also feel bad for the lives that have been hurt by the unwise and foolish actions of some, and I believe that each person is responisble for their own actions, and accountable before the Lord themselves. I do think you're over simplifying some things regarding tithing and people's personal sex-lives. I doubt that anyone in the Family is being made to have sex against their will...at least any more.

(reply to this comment

From Randi
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 02:09

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)

Well, they're not being bent over and forced to have sex literally...but how do you think they managed to "climb the latter" and land in mamas (this whole 'mama' thing should really creep you out enough) home? Trust me, they had to do plenty of bending over (metaphorically .... also) to get there. I've had some friends in Russia, who were married but then were approached by queen Peter for sex, they weren't forced, but they felt very pressured... I mean its "Gods annointed." The husband had to wait somewhere in another room while he had his way with her...Their marriage was almost destroyed over that. Anyway that was not the main point of my comment... The point was, they are going about their normal perverted lives...!! "Sorry if you felt", is a slap in my face. No one gets away with that.... why should they of all people.

Tithing... They should be paying and supporting their "missionaries" not the other way around!!!

They should pay our therapy bills.... it is quite expensive you know...some of us might not have been beaten or abused, but we read those highly mentally destructive GNs and that is terrible enough...Actually worse.

Everyone is accountable for their own actions... But the leaders and generals for example are always responsible. They endorsed it...did it themselves, they wrote letters about how to abuse and control.. and they didn't do it until their disciples were made stupid and brainwashed enough to follow suit. Im not saying that the individual is not responsible at all, sure they are, some were very cruel and went to sick extremes, perhaps further than the leaders intended. However, its important to remember that, most people who joined, were simple, lost, searching kids... not criminals!! What happened?? Well, cults are not called dangerous for nothing!!

(reply to this comment

From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 02:47

(Agree/Disagree?)


Well, if anyone "bends over", as you put it, to "Climb the ladder", then that's their choice, isn't it!?

Don't you think that happens out in the world?

So, do you need counselling just over the GN's that you read, that supposedly had a "detrimental effect", and want someone to pay for it? Well, what if you read a Novel that you didn't like, and then decided to sue the author for mental damages? Or if at work or out and about you heard stuff on the radio that was disturbing, or saw something on TV that was unpleasant, and decided to sue the TV or Radio station? How far do you think that would go? You'd be laughed out of the DA's or solicitors office, most likely! I dunno, maybe in some corporate places like "SueVille", you might have a case, but it really wouldn't make any logical sense!

If you've got a problem with the idea of tithing, as many have had even in Bible times, perhaps you should take it up with the One who instituted the practice, or read what's He's already had to say on the subject! You've heard the story of the Widow's Mite, right! Those who do tithe CHOOSE to do so in order to remain members of the Family! That also is their choice, and I believe that God blesses them in return for it, like He's promised...otherwise they couldn't continue to tithe, could they?! And btw, the Family leadership DOES help support many missionaries on poorer fields!

What happened, well, they obeyed Jesus commandment to "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel" and "made disciples of all nations", they "Preached the Word instant in season and out of season". "Reproved, rebuked and exhorted with all long-suffering and doctrine". That seems to be one part that some of you have a problem with...especially if you were on the receiving end of that rebuke! I know...no-one likes to be told off or corrected...it's human nature! But it's scriptural! "Reproofs and instructions are the way of life"! For those who went too far or made unwise and unloving or even cruel decisions, well, like I said, each person is answerable before the Lord! God is no respector of persons and if someone's got something in their lives that they need to have corrected, you can be sure that sooner or later the Lord will find them out! You needn't worry about that!

So, what specifically would YOU like to be apologised to for, since you've suggested that it wasn't actual abuse!?

(reply to this comment

From Jailbird
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 08:06

Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 3 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm all for people being allowed to speak their piece etc. ... But this is really starting to irk me.

But this has gotten to the point of you just defending cult leadership, which I suppose you have the right to do, but your views and comments are very distasteful to me.

I suppose I should be more tolerant etc. ... But your views are, in my opinion, completely whacked.

Someone goes to a bookstore buys a novel and reads it at their liesure. I was 12 years old when they locked me in a bathroom in some god awful home in Dahka, Bangladesh, without any of my siblings or parents, while they read me the "Last State" GN about my sister.

Sorry man, I think your brother and sister are real positive characters, but your opinions, in my view, are extremely un-Christian, and I'm not even a professing Christian, but I think I have an idea of what it means to be on. Bible standards are that we should march these pervs out to the Coronado bridge, tie the axle of a big rig truck around their necks and toss it off the bridge, Matthew 18:6.

Queen Peter is a perverted creep who has a history of raping little girls, along with his co-conspirator Karen Zerby and his little rapist buddy Charles Perfilio and their CRO rapist buddies. They've destroyed so many marriages, relationships, friendships and lives just to get laid, it's ongoing rape really to use one's position as a tool for extracting sexual favors from one's acolytes.

No one is forcing me to view this site, but your views and opinions are bogus in a way not previously imagined possible and, in my view, you are truly a dufusite extraordinaire.(reply to this comment
From Randi
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 07:31

(Agree/Disagree?)

Oh and by the way... We were forced to read that shit...Write reactions to them etc just to make sure we digested it. Some were isolated with only GNs and the like to read.

Novels, movies etc...? Honestly the compairson is wild!!! You choose to buy, rent those things... Its not forced on you... Its not "the word of God."

PLEASE be sensible. (reply to this comment

From Randi
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 06:34

(Agree/Disagree?)

You make me sick with laughter... I feel so sorry for you...you're obviously damaged goods. You've had way too much destructive cult influence. The fact that you are so pro proves your lack of rationality, integrity and health. Your reasoning is terribly impaired!!! You're reading comprehension is even worse.

'Excuse Me... can someone please take this religious maniac off this site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're not an ex member...and if you are, you should rejoin..its better to centralize cultish personalities like yourself!!! That way society can better control and monitor you and keep you away from our innocent and pure children. How much does your MAMA pay you to make comments on this site? Or worse, she doesnt have to pay you. Youre just so ideologically brainwashed... youre probably so thankful that she would bestow on you the task of fighting and defending your queen...that she considers you strong enough to delve into the mire and gods vomit... without even the smell of smoke because Jesus told her that you have the shield of David...

YOU NEED COUNCELLING!!! But it will be a looooong process for you because youre still in the stage of denial and additionally you suffer from a severe case of religious delusionment... obtaining a breakthrough in your case could take at least 12 sessions. Thats about 1800 dollars right there it doesnt sound like much now...but it will add up after a year... If you don't have a job, you might want to start begging for donations right about now. Go shop to shop and show people your album with pictures from the early 90s. Or whatever. And please JB, remember to tithe.. because God will punish you if you don't, I just know He will.

And when did I say anything about it not being actual abuse?? WTF are you talking about?

I'm not a religious person... I pay taxes to the government..but in return, I get free health care... school... pension etc And it really offends me that you continue to imply that you know what God thinks. The bible was written by men... Not God... Im sure religious leaders since the beginning of time were using Gods name as a way to pay their bills.. So bad example.

(reply to this comment

From Shaka
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 06:54

(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually the Family won't take him. [JB] and his family were judged to be to psychotic even for the cult and were making them look bad. Congrats [JB], you're too crazy to be accepted by pedophilic hippies with apocalyptic and necrophilic fantasies. Wow. Good job. (reply to this comment
From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 15:42

(Agree/Disagree?)


Nice try Shaka, but no cigar!

(reply to this comment

From rainy
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 02:51

(Agree/Disagree?)
You just make me sick. How can you say something like that? You have no idea what anyone else has been through. Your first and last sentences of that comment are proof enough to me that you have no respect for us and it's time for you to leave this site. I don't even want to get into it with you. Just go. (And yes, I know I'm contradicting my earlier sentiments.)(reply to this comment
From JB
Wednesday, March 12, 2008, 03:00

(Agree/Disagree?)


How do you know I don't have any idea? Do you have any idea what I'VE been through!?

My first sentence regarding the present day Family sexual practices was me playing the "devil's advocate" in response to Randi's accusation, because in reality, I don't think that there is people who "bend over" to "climb the ladder" in tf, but I leave open the possibility that I'm wrong! in any case, how could you prove one way or another why someone makes the decisions they do?

My last sentence was an honest question? what have you got against honest questions?

(reply to this comment

From Randi
Tuesday, March 11, 2008, 09:38

(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh and JB... How do know how GOD sees things?? Trust me its not that simple... you dont just apologize and that s it. (reply to this comment
from exfamily
Friday, March 07, 2008 - 05:50

Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5Average visitor agreement is 5 out of 5(Agree/Disagree?)
So was it meant to be (part of) an internal publication only? If so, what was the point of the apology?

(reply to this comment)
From DeeJay
Sunday, March 09, 2008, 21:29

(Agree/Disagree?)
Exactly, instead of reaching out to us themselves, why does it have to be leaked and posted here by ex-members? Qualifies as the same bullshit they've been feeding each other for the last 30 years, nothing more. Insulting actually.(reply to this comment

My Stuff


log in here
to post or update your articles

Community

37 user/s currently online

Web Site User Directory
5047 registered users

log out of chatroom

Happy Birthday to demerit   Benz   tammysoprano  

Weekly Poll

What should the weekly poll be changed to?

 The every so often poll.

 The semi-anual poll.

 Whenever the editor gets to it poll.

 The poll you never heard about because you have never looked at previous polls which really means the polls that never got posted.

 The out dated poll.

 The who really gives a crap poll.

View Poll Results

Poll Submitted by cheeks,
September 16, 2008

See Previous Polls

Online Stores


I think, therefore I left


Check out the Official
Moving On Merchandise
. Send in your product ideas


Free Poster: 100 Reasons Why It's Great to be a Systemite

copyright © 2001 - 2009 MovingOn.org

[terms of use] [privacy policy] [disclaimer] [The Family / Children of God] [contact: admin@movingon.org] [free speech on the Internet blue ribbon] [About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]