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

from jackie Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 12:41 (Agree/Disagree?) If we would be talking about one case of abuse in the whole of "Family" history then maybe (and just maybe) an apology would be enough; however this is not the case. Hello People!! This is about YEARS of abuse to HUNDREDS of children!!! How can you (TF) even think of getting away with a small and stupid apology?! I mean why are there any laws or any prisons for a matter of fact I mean cant those assasins and rapist just "apologize"???? I mean really just how brain-washed and "simple-minded" can you get? (reply to this comment)

from Jules Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 12:04 (Agree/Disagree?) What is so very outrageous is that Maria, Peter and Family leaders were specifically instructed that they had to take action to confront abuse and the effects on the children hurt, something they have utterly failed to do. The following is from Justice Ward's judgement: http://www.exfamily.org/art/misc/justward_ver1.html ***************************** My judgment is that the risks of harm as matters presently stand are significant enough to dictate in his interests that he be removed from his mother. I emphasise that that decision is reached on the matters as they presently stand. … With Berg's death [Maria and Peter] have an opportunity subtly yet dramatically to change further. In my judgment, they may be ready to do so. In my judgment, they should be given an opportunity to do so. I intend, therefore, and subject to argument from Counsel, to impose a Stay upon this Order [S being removed from his mother] so that NT and those who are close to her in The Family may have some short period of reflection. … What I have in mind is the following: … As Peter Amsterdam has recognised, individual members of The Family will not find it possible to be critical of Berg. I must therefore look to the leadership for help. If S is to have the benefit I wish him to have of remaining with his mother, then for his protection and full development, she must invite World Services to satisfy me of their willingness to take the following steps:- 1. World Services must categorically ban the infliction of any corporal punishment on any child within the United Kingdom by anyone other than a parent and parents themselves should be strongly discouraged from resorting to this type of discipline. Rules restricting the use of silence and time out to the degree I set out above should also be clearly applied to this country. The potentially abusive consequences of the over-zealous use of Open Heart Reports should be emphasized. 2. The recommendations of the Educational Steering Committee set out in Peter Amsterdam's letter to me must be promulgated so that The Family in this country may feel free to seek some help from Local Education Authorities and advance their children's education so that they have some recognized qualifications. 3. The Family must assure me of their intention to maintain their programmes of reconciliation and openness and must confirm that it is their policy to encourage the maintenance of contact with relatives outside The Family. 4. The last step will be the hardest. They must denounce David Berg. They must acknowledge that through his writings he was personally responsible for children in The Family having been subjected to sexually inappropriate behaviour; that it is now recognized that it was not just a mistake to have written as he did but wrong to have done so; and that as a result children have been harmed by their experiences. World Services must follow the advice of NT's expert, Dr Heller and must do what the psychiatrists say must be done for the protection of children in The Family . The Family must be encouraged honestly to face up to this shameful period in their history so that those harmed by it, victims and perpetrators alike, can seek to come to terms with it. For an honest memorial to be given to David Berg, this dark side to his character must be revealed. By all means, let thanks be given also for the good he did - as I accept he did for many -and for the inspiration he has been to those who through him have devoted their lives to the service of the Lord. Dr Michael Heller He is a Consultant Child Psychiatrist, an acknowledged expert in his field and a frequent witness in The Family Division. He was called by NT. … He was firmly of the view that no child should partake of any sexual activity with grown-ups nor should any child be exposed to adult sexual behaviour. He said that if corporal punishment of a more or less formalised kind was practised then he would be very concerned for there are always better ways of discipline. He said:- "I hope those with executive power will take to heart that this ought not to have happened and must not happen again." It became plain as he was cross-examined just how deeply he deplored the excesses of discipline used by The Family. He would have no truck with the suggestion that it being done in love was a sufficient excuse. He called that a medieval approach like middle-age inquisitors inflicting torture to force the victim to recant for the good of his soul. He considered it degrading that VB should use the Law of Love to justify her having done something which she knew in her heart was wrong. It raised for Dr Heller the extent to which people go to extremes in the name of faith. Whilst acknowledging that a vast amount of material had become relevant, he felt angry that more information had not been vouchsafed to him when he was conducting his enquiries because he considered important matters had been put in issue in the case which he would have wished to have explored. He was cross-examined about the effects of child sexual abuse. He made it plain that a general principle of psychiatry is that past abusers should where possible have treatment. If an abuser is without knowledge that his acts were abusive, then he is all the more dangerous. If an abuser thinks he can get away with it, he will do it. He was not convinced that the distinction drawn between love and lust was anything more than an exculpatory justification for something that was known to be wrong. A therapist treating a sexual abuser would look for a frank acknowledgement of the abuse that had been committed, an acknowledgement of the fact that it harmed the victim and a total renunciation of any suggestion that the child asked for it. Accordingly he denounced RF for exposing his penis - on his own admission - in order to give some verisimilitude to a lesson on the facts of life. Without those acknowledgements, risks would be too unacceptably high for contact between a child and the perpetrator of child sex abuse to take place unsupervised. He said this:- "I would expect that adult members and leaders would come to a genuine and sincere acknowledgement that the earlier teachings were:- (1) In need of revision (2) Were in fact wrong. Were I a member, I would want regular group meetings where these things were brought into the open. If people won't look facts in the face, if people are able to persuade themselves black was white, they must be seen as imperfect protectors of children. The leadership would need to undertake a lot of new writing to explain how the situation has changed." He was cross-examined about GN 555, "Our beliefs concerning the Lord's Law of Love" written by Peter Amsterdam and Apollos. He condemned that letter for failing emphatically to assert that any sexualised contact with a child was not just inexpedient but plainly and unutterably wrong because it caused psychological and emotional harm to the child. He said, "If these adults from mother upwards fail to recognise that this is a doctrine which cannot be accepted, then this would cause me great concern. It they accept this teaching, they will have no reason to suppose that they will have misconducted themselves. They should recognise this is a doctrine which is pernicious." He felt that paragraphs 51 to 53 were a backhanded apology and he found it dismaying that charismatic figures were so arrogant as to be able to persuade others that they knew what was God's will. He said, "Whatever motivated David Berg, those who are adherents need to look at the world in which they are now living and have regard to the views of the system. I would want them to be able to recognise within themselves that it was wrong and had bad affects and that he had responsibility for it. I would like them to acknowledge he was wrong. It is important from a child protective point of view to say he led us astray." He was scathing in his criticism of paragraphs 60 and 61 of that letter which refused to lay the blame at the door of David Berg. That he said is the opposite of what had to happen. "I would want who ever is responsible for S to reject the false doctrines. I would certainly want the leaders to come to a quite different view of these matters and say this is no longer a tenable reaction." He was dismissive of the "Good Thots" selection of psychiatric advice which he condemned as wrong and very misleading and not based on principles which have any validity at all. He said it ought to be withdrawn with an explanation that research showed that any sexual contact between adult and child was harmful. His conclusion was:- "If the leadership continued to broadcast mixed messages and those receiving them fail to recognise the risks, then it is difficult to be protective." (reply to this comment)

From exister Wednesday, November 26, 2003, 12:57 (Agree/Disagree?) All of this business about the judgement of Lord Justice Ward is futile wishful thinking. The family is by definition an antinomianist cult. That means they consider themselves morally above any jurisdiction on earth. It is not a moral challenge for them to slither between jurisdictions to avoid compliance with a court ruling. The only option is an intransigent legal assault on all family assets wherever they are found.(reply to this comment)

from Brokenbodystrongspirit Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 21:19 (Agree/Disagree?) The Family’s official “apology”, which they so love to regurgitate regularly with a “We’ve already apologized for this, what more can we do?” whenever an abuse victim starts getting a little too threatening for their liking, or their voice a little too loud, is such a pathetic, inadequate attempt to escape responsibility that it is beyond insulting. Imagine the outcry if the President of the US were to make a big hoopla of a press conference stating, “On behalf of the American government, I apologize to all of you who have been abused and molested and raped. We never wanted any of that to happen to you, we feel so bad for you, and all the pain you’ve had to endure. We hope that you know that it was all the fault of some immature people who misunderstood our laws. We hope that you can now find it in your heart to go on with your lives, forgive and forget, and to continue to live and work with these people. God will give you the strength, if you will yield to Him. And most of all, remember, NEVER BRING YOUR ABUSE STORIES UP EVER AGAIN!!!” And then following up this press conference by never arresting, trying, or convicting any of the perpetrators. Does Maria and Peter even get that this is exactly what they have done? How can they even think that one apology will cover every story of every victim of every abuse that ever occurred? How can they think that these things are just a quick, “Oops, sorry, but let’s bury the hatchet!” type thing? Sorry, that only works if you ran over your neighbors’ mailbox. When people’s lives and hearts are involved, there should have been a healing time; victims should have been sought out, counseled, and helped lovingly back in to a place of trust. (Not to mention punishment for the abusers.) Did any of this happen? Was there ever a letter written to address the issue of healing from abuse? Were there ever any special programs or counsel for those who were having to deal with the abuse? Or special attention or treatment? No, nothing but a heartfelt, “Okay, so some stuff happened. We’re sorry. GET OVER IT!!” Some “Family of Love.” With family like that, who needs abusers? (reply to this comment)

From exister Wednesday, November 26, 2003, 09:53 (Agree/Disagree?) The victims of the family deserve more by way of restitution than counseling and a healing place. They deserve $$$. The way I see it all present and future assets of the family cannot even begin to compensate the victims for the lifelong anguish inflicted upon them. BTW, I don't consider myself one of those that needs to get paid.(reply to this comment)

From Blondie_B78 Wednesday, November 26, 2003, 00:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Excellent point about no "GNs" ever being dedicated to the subject of healing from abuse. Obviously WS didn't see it as a "big enough" problem to address it so publicly. "The nails are gone but the scars remain". (reply to this comment)

from exister Tuesday, November 25, 2003 - 20:07 (Agree/Disagree?) To this I'd like to add the following. Since you (and by you I mean...) have people monitoring this site that would imply that at least some of your members are sufficiently "strong in the lord" to sift through "the doubts of satan." Why not let one of these spiritually burly members engage Daniel or myself or anyone else on this site in an unregulated discussion about your withering belief crutch. I would gladly strip your representative down to the cowering psychological bitch that he/she is. Chances are the first obstacle to such an open discussion is your complex and bizzare "selah" secrecy system. Can your belief system be that good if you have to keep most of it secret? "Hide it under a bushel, OH NO!" "I'm gonna let it shine!" Let it shine bitches, let it shine. (reply to this comment)

From DarkAngel Thursday, November 27, 2003, 10:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Good one Exister ,that's the way i i i i i like it! Glad you like the derelict comment. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Wednesday, November 26, 2003, 15:34 (Agree/Disagree?) That was awesome, exister!! Good for you!! (reply to this comment)