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

from Jedran Thursday, December 30, 2004 - 23:06 (Agree/Disagree?) It's funny that they talk about how the Family supports "nuclear families." I recall reading a GN a few years ago, in which Zerby said in a "prophecy from Jesus" that a tribal atmosphere is the right way and that the nuclear family i.e. father, mother and kids just makes you think about yourself and not others. (reply to this comment)

from Joe H Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 13:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Is it too late to contact his college and tell them to deny him his doctorate for grossly inadequate research? (reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Wednesday, December 29, 2004, 13:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Unfortunately, this is consistent with the approach of an entire wave of "Sociology of Religion" scholars who see the issue as one of religious freedom and tolerance, and who brush past the "growing pains" and "occasional excesses" of these poor little New Religious Movements who are just trying to get a little respect and validation, "just like any other religion". These so-called scholars routinely dismiss the bad news coming out of cults as "sour grapes" by "apostates" who are mad because they couldn't cut it, parents who resent losing their adult children to a guru, and scholars they immediately marginalize as "anti-cult" idiots who think its all about brainwashing. This is definitely an uphill battle for those few scholars who actually know how bad it is. For instance, I have met Eileen Barker at least four times, and she is acutely aware of the many horrors that have occurred in the Unification Church (Moonies), but she continues to generally side with the "freedom of religion" crowd and sees the abuse stories as aberrations. (reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Wednesday, December 29, 2004, 14:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Another reason that this kind of blatantly false research occurs is because it is actually pretty hard to get an accurate picture from the outside. As a colleague of mine from Isot noted, just as in TF, "It's annoying to know that these people have been duped by their" once every three years" visit when the sanitized version of ISOT was on full display. We ALL remember the big productions we participated in while living in Canby when we expected visiting dignitaries, spiritual or secular. We ALWAYS showed the cleanest house, the biggest smiles and killed the fattest calf. The underbelly of ISOT was deliberately hidden from view and these folks left Canby with a completely false impression. Marie (our own little Isot "queen") has been putting on these shows since the day I met her. AS long as the Move people wear blinders and deny reality I am compelled to expose ISOTs duplicity. (reply to this comment)

from surfer Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 12:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess whoever wrote that never got around to reading "child brides" (reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, December 29, 2004, 15:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Or, to give a very partial list off the top of my head: "The Devil Hates Sex" The Mene Series (Grandpa whining to Mene "I opened my home and my bed to you and this is how you repay me") The letter where he says "this will probably shock a lot of people, but how about daughter learning a little FFing from mother? At age 13 & 14 they can take a lot more F*ing as they aren't worn out by all those babies and life in general." (this is from memory, not verbatim, but I can give the verbatim quote) The Basic Training Handbook? The Little Girl Dream? Heaven's Girl? Sex with Techi and Maria in Heaven's Children? And the Davidito Book? "My Little Fish?" The GN with "Be Not Ignorant of the Devil's Devices," where "teens" are told what "systemites" call "child abuse," explaining that in the system people are not filled with the Lord's love but are motivated by lust, so that's why they're wary about adults using kids sexually, and going on to explain that "we can't do this now, but if in the past you had love-up with an Uncle and are worried about it, don't consider him a dirty old man but forget the past." Flirty little Teens Beware The "Teen James" letters where the kid is beaten, made to fast, etc., for such sins as being upset his dad was carted off to WS leaving mum and the siblings, having an interest in knowledge and encyclopedias, doubting the Word, not liking life in the Family, and, inclredibly, having a negative attitude toward sex and girls and not liking lovemaking (imagine that???) Ah, and let us not forget Summit Jewels 1993 -- which documents the top leader, Maria, stating that they believe it's OK to fondle children, and speculating how one day TF may just have to "take a stand," and come right out and say that they think adult/child sex is not wrong.\ Finally, I can't say how applicable this is to kids younger than me as I did not grow up in their age bracket, but the fact of life when I was growing up is that our sole input was Mo Letters. Not only did we receive no other mental nourishment, but the Mo Letters were the Word of God delivered through his End-Time Prophet. As little disciples growing up in a world that seemingly reverted to the pre-Renaissance or pre-Romantic days when there was no concept of "childhood," we were obligated to behave like little adults. No murmuring, whining, fits or selfishness. Used to keeping silent in hunger, cold or heat. Used to "forsaking" toys and parents for the cause. Aware that the world would end before I was 21 and that I would not likely make it that far anyway, since the last 3.5 years (1989 to 1993) we would be fleeing in the wilderness with nothing but the Word we'd hidden in our hearts. Yes, my dear generation JETT, by the time they came up with all these magical powers Heaven's Children would have, I had been a 12-year-old adult on the adult's sharing circuit, then post-TTC, became a teen, PLUS the Tribulation underwent postponment in 1986 when I was 13. When I was growing up, only the 2 End-Time Witnesses could breathe fire and perform other impressive life-saving tricks. So meanwhile, we were fed the Mo Letters which in the early 70's (contemporaneously with my birth) took a very sexual turn. Nobody thought to give my age cohort something more suitable or considered our impressionable young minds' reaction to "The Girl Who Wouldn't." If I take a less charitable view, they considered it fully and figured when we got a few years older (bodies broad enough so an adult penis could have its way wihtout sending us immediately to a hospital disemboweled) we'd fail to think twice. Happy New Year.(reply to this comment)

from Joe H Wednesday, December 29, 2004 - 10:38 (Agree/Disagree?) The outrageuous and audacious LIES are simply incredible. These so-called objective sociologists are like dumb dogs that cannot bark. Has he read ANY of Berg's writings? The Ward judgement? He should be stripped of his degree and beaten with a stick! (reply to this comment)