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

from Judas Thursday, March 10, 2005 - 16:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Anyone notice how myconclusion.com has pulled all articles from FGA's except Dan's parents? After I posted Kathy Farrell's "conclusion" and called her out as a molester last week, the site's been changed. Goes to show they're guilty. I was wondering when these idiots were going to figure out that they're giving us all their legal names. Go hide, run away like you always do, we'll find you. The Family is losing their control. (To the Family members monitoring our websites: Must feel pretty good to sleep knowing you've protected a child molester, now they can molest again and again. And tell Dan he should be very careful about the legalities behind hosting a web page as a p.r. front for The Family, the authorities know Dan's location. Zerby and Kelly are feeling pretty comfortable sitting back and sending Dan out as a "sheep to the slaughter". They've done it many times. Look what happened to Rick.) (reply to this comment)

From 2 dans Thursday, March 10, 2005, 16:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Didn't mean to mix up the Daniels -- The first - Roselle, the second - myconclusion.com Dan.(reply to this comment)

from Baxter Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 06:51 (Agree/Disagree?) The most horrendous part of this is the kind of daming shit they must have told this kid about his own brother- they really do have no shame! It demonstrates a pretty skewed perspective to think that airing the voice of a child (who happens to be related to a casualty) could be poignant or even annasailable, but that is probably the assumption behind this. (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Wednesday, February 23, 2005, 06:52 (Agree/Disagree?) *unassailable(reply to this comment)

from Spat Monday, February 21, 2005 - 22:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Fucking Idiots, Nothing is out of bounds with these people (reply to this comment)

from One of yours. Monday, February 21, 2005 - 13:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I can not belive my eyes, I made a copy of your site and put it in a CD, as 1 more for the colection of mental abuse. I cant belive that you people could do this to a 11 year old child, this is not the theme for one so small, I understand that he had a brother that suicided, but I can also say that to use a child his age to excuse your selfs of things that you commited in the passed is tottaly lame, it is like using a child to share "your" (the familys) thoughts and tring to excuse your selfs from your dirty past. I hope that you have what is called the Fear of the Lord, and get on your knees and deliver your soul from this ungodly acction. MTLHYA. (reply to this comment)

from Lance Sunday, February 20, 2005 - 05:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes I am completely appalled. What sort of parent would bring their child into the fray of this argument? What sort of parent would so readily expose their 11 year old child to the complexities of suicide? Whoever his parents are, I say: shame on you! (reply to this comment)

From MariaKL Sunday, February 20, 2005, 23:16 (Agree/Disagree?) That child is my little brother and yes it is a terrible thing that he has been exposed to what suicide is at such a young age. And even worse that he is being exploited to defend a cult. I can only hope that as he grows old enough to understand the reasons behind our Brother Josh choosing to end his life, that he and the rest of my siblings who are still in The Family, will be strong enough to not do the same. And to have a successful happy life outside to this sick cult.(reply to this comment)

From vixen Sunday, February 20, 2005, 06:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Perhaps we should remember that this boy's brother died through suicide, as Xhrisl has already explained. Yes, it seems a terrible thing to have told a child, but at his age I feel that I would do the same if I were in his parent's position. Children are not stupid and he would most likely have heard things here and there that would have confused him had he been told some lie as to how his brother died. What's sad, in my opinion, is the fact that most likely there has been some subtle reference to the effect that 'he died because he left TF and wasn't happy anymore' which seems to come out in Jefrey's post. But that is a separate issue, in my opinion, than that of being told how his brother died. Children cannot be children forever and unfortunately some have to grow up before others. My daughter is nine and she is already aware that sometimes people choose to end their lives. She knows because I told her in response to a question, explaining as gently as possible my perspective on what might bring someone to such an action. (reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Sunday, February 20, 2005, 15:38 (Agree/Disagree?) My kids too are aware of the meaning of suicide, and what it means. I have always been open with them when they have a question, and they see things on the news. The society we are in (Japan) has a high suicide rate and so it's something that comes out in the manga they read, or shows they watch. I feel it's better to be open with them about. I have tried not to make suicide seem like a horrible act, mainly cause I don't want my children to grow up judgemental or with SR attitudes, but I tell them that if they ever chose to end their life it would kill me too, a part of me would die with them, trying rather to show them what would happen to those who love them if they chose to end their own life.(reply to this comment)

From moon beam Monday, February 21, 2005, 10:12 (Agree/Disagree?) My son is 12 and I am honest with him and discus world and daily events with him, including death, suicide and politics. It's the slant TF put on things that is a worry but as you said you are in contact with him and over time and listening to varied veiwpoints he will hopefuly draw his own conclusions. There was a few suicides in the news over the recent years by 10-12 year olds who were being bullied, I felt these examples helped me explain and show how the way we treat people is important, also the risks from conformity. I know how hard peer pressure is at that age and helping your child steer clear of potentualy dangerous situations and mind sets is a crucial element in their susceptability to becoming a "sheep". With this age also comes the detachment phaze, where rebelion against the parents are driven through a newly discovered independace but where peer pressure takes over. I think every parent starts to worry about different aspects of parenting during this time, one is will he use his own cognitive controls. I recomend the film "Lord of the rings" Also imortant IMO, is keepin in touch with school, friends parents and other relatives etc.. Enviromantal and social conditions can contribute to making people feel anonymous , no one knows who they are so they care less making them potentual assasins, vandals, a danger to me and you. As can be seen with some methods employed in TF. A good quote from P.Zimbardo; "Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators" "While a few bad apples might spoil the barrel(filled with good fruit/people,) a vinegar barrel will always transform sweet cucumbers into sour pickles-regardless of the best intentions, resilience, and genetic nature of those cucumbers" So does it make more sense to spend resources to identify, isolate and destroy bad apples or to understand how vinegar works, and teach cucumbers how to avoid undesirable vinegar barrels? "What my model adds to the mix of what is needed to get good people to engage in evil deeds is a focus on cognitive controls that usually guide behaviour in socially desirable and personally acceptable ways. It can be accomplished by knocking out these control processes, blocking them, minimizing them or reorienting them. Doing so, suspends conscience, self awareness, sense of personal responsibility, obligation, comitment, liability, morality and analysis in terms of coss/benifits of given actions. The two general stratigiesfor accomplishing this abjective are ; to reducecues of social acountabilityof the actor(no one knows who I am or cares too), and reducing concerns for self evaluation by the actor. The first cuts out concerns for social evaluation, for social aproval, and does so by making the individual anonyamous . It works when some one is functioning in an enviroment that conveys anonymity and difusses personal responsiility across others in the situation. The second strategy stops self-monitoring and consistancey monitoring by relying on tactics that alter one's state of consciencess(through drugs, arousing strong emtions, hyper-intense actions, getting into an expanded present-time orientation where there is no concern for past or future), and by projecting responsibility outward on others." (reply to this comment)

from cheeks Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 15:25 (Agree/Disagree?) While it is sad that this child posted this thing on mydelusion we need to remember where we were and what our mentality was at that age. Yes, the Family has changed since then. However we need to remember how we thought and acted. Eventually this child will use this to think for himself and hopefully will come to his own conclusion, one that differs from his parents and peers. That is the great thing about being human no matter what we were taught eventually we thought for ourselves some sooner than later but we all thought. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, February 19, 2005, 19:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Exactly! That’s why it’s so sad, because I remember defending the cult just like him, when I didn’t have a clue what I was talking about.(reply to this comment)

from xhrisl Friday, February 18, 2005 - 18:57 (Agree/Disagree?) The 11 year old in this testimony is my younger brother; the suicide he is speaking of is that of his older brother referenced at In Remembrance, For Josh. http://movingon.org/article.asp?sID=8&Cat=34&ID=778&searchTerms=for%20josh&qlid= I have a slight suspicion that there may have been some parental influence exerted in the formulation of this statement, most likely as a counter response to the “negative” publicity generated by the interviews with former SGA’s (myself included) by Don Lattin of the SanFrancisco Chronicle. http://movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=49&ID=2535&searchTerms=Show%20Low&qlid= While I have no doubts regarding the authenticity of my brothers statement “I’ve been in the Family for all my life, and I’ve been very happy here. I’m not abused or mistreated, let me live my life in peace!” I do, however, assert that he is being coached. If for one moment I ever thought he was ever subjected to the same standards of behavioral modification and abuse, which were perpetrated on us early SGA’s I would be all over it like white on rice. Notwithstanding, the obvious coaching, Jeffery has options and will have more when he comes of age. He has a large extended network of older siblings who do live in the real world, and with whom he communicates. He also lives in a home governed only by his mother and has the support of an older sibling (also an ex-SGA) who resides there as well. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is an all out recruitment drive by TF in an attempt to discredit the reality of our experiances. Is TF an evil organization? Yes, so long as those who perpetrated and promoted the abuse of their own and others children remain in positions of power within the organization. Sadly, there is a percentage of current members (many of whom are decent people) who remain deluded sheep, and as well all know, "the reason sheep need a Shepard is because they are dumb." (reply to this comment)

from venusbutterfly Friday, February 18, 2005 - 11:00 (Agree/Disagree?) what on earth are they doing?? is this even serious?? how can an 11 year old be speaking on the subject of suicide?? this is SO sad...have they no pride? if only TF members could see that we never intended to tell others how to lead their lives, all we want is some justice....we're not against TF as a whole or against the dedicated individuals but against the ones that use power to abuse either physically or mentally. the way i see it is that TF members are ruining their personal name & reputation by taking a stand against justice, because that is all we are asking for...justice. i cannot find the words to describe what i felt when reading that boy's "testimony"...all i know is that i have children and i sure hope they will not be discussing or contemplating suicide or any other other such subject anytime soon it's painful to realise what a strong poll they have over all minds, both young and old and if little Jeffrey ever gets to read this then i would like to say that indeed if more suicides occur outside of Family homes it's because children raised in TF are not raised to survive in any other environment than that of TF, and if ever you are faced with a life outside TF it will be a long hard struggle to be able to find a way back to your own mind and thought pattern...good luck! (reply to this comment)

from Nancy Friday, February 18, 2005 - 09:48 (Agree/Disagree?) How sad and tragic!!! No one is presecuting you, my dear child. No one wants any harm to come to you. No one I know would even allow it. How terrible that the cult has resorted to scaring children to protect child abusers!!! There is no low to which the cult's leadership will not stoop. (reply to this comment)

from Friday, February 18, 2005 - 08:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Since TF somewhat masterminds/oversees all these myconclusion-contributions,I was wondering, why they didn't make him to "say cheese" a dozen times in order to then select the best pic, selling that "inevitable truth", how (supposedly) happy one is in TF.I bet, he hardly intended to share anything of what they asked him to.Sounds too much like adults putting the words in his mouth.Thanks for once again showing us their (your, if TF happens to read this) sad reality. By the way, there is some sad fault in their logic.TF makes more or less sure, that sad cases get thrown out in time.Enough eyes around to detect that & that means, some people, hardly being out, commit suicide.How terrible, to rid oneself of any responsibility. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, February 18, 2005, 11:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Can we please stop saying that TF is "masterminding" and "overseeing" the myconcusion posts? By saying things like that, you’re just strengthening the divide between former members and current members. TF’s leadership are much more subtle than to "tell" people what to write on myconclusion.com. Instead, they fill them with one point of view, forbid them access to any alternative points of view, and just wait for them to get riled up against the people who are supposedly "persecuting" them. By claiming their leadership told them what to write, we’re just playing into their leadership’s hands. As far as these teenagers are concerned, the articles they write for myconclusion.com are 100% sincere, and they will be offended by anyone who says otherwise. (reply to this comment)

From Saturday, February 19, 2005, 21:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I purposely put the adv. somewhat to relativate the whole thought.I am convinced, that the older members pretty much have a free hand on how to vent their frustration,in wording etc..I read through many comments of them & often you find phrases expressing the desire to be left alone & having the right to live according to their faith, as if that was ever really the point of the exercommunity at large.But please consider may be the agefactor.You would have sat down with 11 & had written such a response, chosen those kind of words?You mean, TF lets him on that website all by himself, log himself in from the homecomputer?The same goes for the rest of the contributions.They let it be published, if it portrays their "TF-reality".I wouldn't be surprised, if they had also a quick advisory from the top on the whole thing.How else do you have contributions from all over the world, since very few of TF seem to scan the internet.And strange enough, many of the posts have the same ring: please, can we live our lives according to our faith.That sounds like what TF would like in general, but they hardly ever refer to the reasons, why they are attacked.Strange, isn't it?Whether the masterminding takes place through their awful pubs to "train" their minds beforehand or looking over their shoulder while writing those articles is not really too relevant to me.(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, February 18, 2005, 13:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Spin it any way you like Wolf, but in the 16 years that I was in the Family I specifically recall being explicitly told what to do most of the time. I know you are probably as tired of hearing this as I am of saying it, but I reject the idea that we are supposed to be fighting some propaganda war for the hearts and minds of these simpletons. To Hell with them! Let them be stupid until they are old and have to work at Wal-Mart for all I care. As Arty Lang on The Howard Stern Show would say, "Waaa! All of my siblings are ignorant and tied up in an evil cult! Waaa!"(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, February 18, 2005, 20:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess we each have our own interests. I’m not very interested in seeing a bunch of people who committed crimes 10-20 years ago go to jail, but I will worry less about friends that are in the group if they manage to wake up to Zerby and Kelly’s bullshit and get rid of them – this would also mean renouncing many of Berg’s doctrines and would make the group fundamentally different. And here’s something I’m tired of saying and you’re probably tired of hearing: a 16 year old who’s in the group right now does not lead the same life that you did when you were 16 and in the group. Zerby and Kelly have learned from the mistakes that led to the previous generation of SGA’s leaving, and they are hoping to keep the current generation by treating them differently.(reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, February 18, 2005, 23:06 (Agree/Disagree?) "I’m not very interested in seeing a bunch of people who committed crimes 10-20 years ago go to jail..." And why's that Wolf? You wouldn't mind having these criminals let loose in society?(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, February 18, 2005, 23:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Because I don’t adhere to the "once a criminal, always a criminal" philosophy. I didn’t say I’m against them going to jail, it’s just not a personal interest of mine. I don’t personally know any abusers that are still a menace to society (I did meet Kelly, but I can’t say I know him personally).(reply to this comment)

From openmind Sunday, February 20, 2005, 09:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Perhaps "once a criminal, always a criminal" doesn't apply to all cases but I believe that "once a paedophile, always a paedophile". If a child molester is given an opportunity, if he believes he won't get caught, he will certainly give in to his perverted desires.(reply to this comment)

From Big Sister Saturday, February 19, 2005, 00:26 (Agree/Disagree?) The typical child sex offender molests an average of 117 children, most of whom do not report the offence. Source: National Institute of Mental Health, 1988.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, February 19, 2005, 08:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I would say the average sex offender in society differs greatly from the average COG sex offender, because child sex offenses are highly discouraged in society at large, so it’s more likely that only pedophiles will commit this type of crime, but in the COG child sex crimes were highly encouraged, so they ended up being committed by both pedophiles (who I suspect were few in number) and people who would not normally include children in their sex life. I only lived with one pedophile during my years in the COG (he is still in the cult, actually), but I lived with at least 5 adults who had sexual contact with children at some point. How can I judge the difference? The one man I consider a pedophile actively sought out children for sex. The rest seemed to do it as a "duty" and I didn’t sense that they wanted it.(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Wednesday, February 23, 2005, 06:57 (Agree/Disagree?) As hard as I have tried, dude, I cannot have sex with a person I don't want to have sex with. Short of somebody pointing a gun a my head (or effecting something of the same exerted pressure) what I do with my body is my own choice, and I have to take responsibility for it. (reply to this comment)

From Big Sister Saturday, February 19, 2005, 13:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, you have an interesting point. I thought of this as I made my previous post. However it occured to me that TF would attract people who are pedophiles, increasing their incidence in the cult to higher than in normal society. And it would attract people who do not find pedophila offensive. These would be folks who experienced some abuse as children themselves and have not had any therapy. These would be people who have problems around boundaries; difficulty defending themselves and saying NO. People who will do just about anything, no matter how personally abhorrent it is, because the ends always justify the means. In other words, people you would NOT want raising children. These were FGAs, after all; people who were raised to know the law and ethics on child/adult sexual contact. I say, if they did the crime, they are criminals. They are fully responsible for their actions. I would not trust any one of those not-really-a-pedophiles to be capable of ethical or moral judgements, to respect boundaries or to selflessly protect a child from danger. For me there is not an appreciable difference between a professional pedophile and a pedophile wannbe. I personally don't want either one around me or my children, no matter how "nice" or how "Christian" they may be. That said, the reality is that the true pedophile is going to have done a larger volume of harm and is more likely to get caught. Or, as we are hoping here, more likely to get turned in. The wannbes still have a lifelong debt to be paid to their victims for the deeds they did do.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, February 19, 2005, 22:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you. I wouldn’t trust those people with my kids IF they are still in the group. If, however, they have seen the error of their ways and left the group, I think it’s very unlikely that they will ever touch a child in that way again – that is, the former members who weren’t pedophiles but just got sucked into the whole perverted mess because they were "obeying". As I have brought out before, the "life long debt" you speak of would be better paid in cash to the victim(s) than jail time.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, February 20, 2005, 09:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree. Pedophile is by definition an adult who is sexually attracted to a child. Some single mom who was put on the sharing schedule with a 14 year old and obeyed ("God's Laws") would be not be a pedophile in my book. She was probably aware of the legal implications but most thought "Jesus would come back" before there was any accountibility. Somebody who was attracted to kids and sexually abused them would be a pedophile whether in or out of group and those are the people that should be taken off the streets.(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, February 20, 2005, 14:43 (Agree/Disagree?) You don't have to be a known serial paedophile to be charged for having sex with a minor. So they're not paedophiles, they're just 30+ year olds that had sex with minors once or twice!? Fuck that. "She was probably aware of the legal implications but most thought Jesus would come back before there was any accountibility." Are you speaking from experience here Magneto? And I'd love to see them use that excuse in court. "Well basically your honour, we all thought we'd be living inside the moon by now". And how does one go about proving if someone is attracted to minors, or if they just had sex with them to "fit in" with the rest of the perverts?(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, February 20, 2005, 16:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Neez, Breaking the law is breaking the law. I don't think anyone who was abused has to prove that that somebody is a pedophile. Whether it was statuatory rape (consensual) or flat out violent rape and abuse...it was illegal. My point is that the victim would probably decide how and if they want to persue justice legally...and their decision would be based on their personal experience. I support anyone who chooses to legally prosecute anybody who broke the law and hurt them in any way. However, I am ESPECIALLY interested in seeing pedophiles prosecuted for their actions in order to protect kids. (reply to this comment)

From dare2b Monday, February 21, 2005, 03:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Statutory rape is a flat-out offence and a very serious one. The way it is defined eases the burden of proof for prosecution. Did penetration occur? How old was the victim at the time of the act? Is there any clue to the identity of the perpetrator? That is about all that is needed. However, the victim and/or the parents/legal guardian has to press charges. I am less sure about the ability of a third party to do so. In the UK, the perpetrator may not be able to escape under the statutes of limitations - but local legal advice is needed on that point. Years and years ago, Berg insisted that if any of these charges were true, the COG would have been put in jail long ago. Absence of criminal charges provides some sort of validation of the TF defence by default. It may be hard on the victims, no doubt, but if they were abused, they can at least report to the authorities. It is then up to the authorities to find the proof.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Monday, February 21, 2005, 06:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree. Some time ago I suggested that there be some type of anonymous system wherebe people could quantify all illegal activity whether they want to pursue legal action and regardless of the "severity". It wouldn't obligate people who are now in their 20's or 30's to participate in court cases but at the very least it would prevent the TF from attempting to marginalize their victims who do seek justice through the legal system and minimize the scale in which these crimes occured which I think is very offensive to all of us former members who know the truth. (reply to this comment)

From xolox Sunday, February 20, 2005, 12:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I completely disagree! If one can suspend the feelings of guilt associated with doing something they know is illegal, and criminal, simply because they believe that they will be rescued from accountability in the nick of time does not make them guiltless. In my oppinion, the only persons for whom guilt might be a grey zone are the older KIDS who might have done these things on command. Any adult who joined knew what they were doing, and stands accountable for their actions. There are plenty of things they probably stayed away from because their new code of beleif forbade them. No one had a gun to their head and said fuck a kid! They did it so they would not be thought less of by their peers, and so avoid marginalization. Maybe you can explain what you mean when you say -"Some single mom who was put on the sharing schedule with a 14 year old and obeyed ("God's Laws") would be not be a pedophile in my book. She was probably aware of the legal implications but most thought "Jesus would come back" before there was any accountibility."- Sounds to me like you're condoning certain forms of paedophilia. That's really a strange thing to say. You are in my oppinion one strange bird Leshner.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, February 20, 2005, 16:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm talking about the pedophiles and danger that those pose to children both within TF and outside. I'm not excusing the behavior of anyone because people have to be accountable for their actions. It goes without saying that I think teens and adults (or anyone at anytime) on a sharing schedule is 100% fucked up. I'm trying to differentiate the danger that they pose. If I knew a guy that was 14 yrs old on a sharing schedule and wanted to pursue legal action against a "sister" involved I would support him if he wanted to press charges though I would probably place more blame on the group. On the other hand, if an adult sought out my friend as a child or teen (male and female) and had any type of sex with them then I would strongly recommend to my friend that they go after after the individual legally because odds are they are going to continue to be a danger to children because of their attraction to having sex with kids...thus they are a pedophile.(reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Sunday, February 20, 2005, 15:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I haven't researched or studied this subject, but I have wondered about the difference between a confirmed child molestor, and someone who, due to circumstances, or in this case, cultic teachings, did have sexual intimacy with a minor. I believe the adult would be accountable and have to take personal responsibility for the act, but do they fall into the same category as a child molestor for something that they did only once or twice, or only at a certain time in the history of the Family? In a court of law would the judge and jury perhaps take into consideration things like the situation, the teachings they had been submerged in, the pressure that was around them to conform to their present social system, as well as the age of the minor in question? I think someone like Mr. Salazar, or Josiah, for instance, have a genuine problem with sexual abuse of minors, it happened more than once, plus, at least in Mr. Salazar's case, it involved very young children. But I know cases that happened in the group where the adults in question were strongly influenced by the writings of Berg and the actions of the 'leaderes' around them, the pressure was on them to participate in sexual intimacy with minors, and the minors in question were not little children, but over the age of 12. I realise this may piss some of you off, but I think in particular my age group (those who are now in their 30s) will understand this point. When we were turning 12, the Family at that time had very few of us and Berg had deemed that at 12 we were adults and able to handle and take on adult responsibilities, including being part of the 'sharing' schedules. Although I was never part of it, our peer group was so limited and so far between, plus relationships with outsiders was so frowned on, that we had little choice than 'adults', who at that time would be around 25-35. I'm not saying this to let anyone off the hook for going past the bounds in regards to sex or intimacy with minors. But I think that one needs to consider all the factors involved at the time, and that there is a difference between a child abuser, and someone who normally would not have done anything in that regard but due to the situation around them did. Berg had managed to turn a lot of wrongs into rights, and vice versa. There are 'adults' who joined when they were 16, 17, 18, that's pretty young, the mind is still impressionable at the time. Also the local societies where the Family was in should be taken into account. For instance, in India, having more than one wife, or having mistresses is not unreasonable, it's part of the society. So, an Indian disciple joining the Family brings with them their already socially accepted rules, and the Family is not teaching them mainstream Christianity, but their version, which coincides with what the new disciple already accepts, and so it's not a big deal to them (I'm speculating on this). In some societies, sex with a 12-year old is not totally outrageous, in some societies kids get married at that age. Before you attack what I'm saying, just consider it. We judge a lot of things based on the American value system, and I feel that the American values (for the most part) are good, but there are other value systems to take into consideration, as well as circumstances, etc. I'm open to hearing other opinions though cause this is something I've had a question about for awhile: How 'guilty' is a person who had sexual intimacy with a minor (not child), but who has not continued with it past a certain time period? And I feel I need to sort it out and come to some answers about it. Maybe those of you who have experienced sexual relations with an 'adult' while they were a 'minor' could share your opinions about it, even anonymously. And I don't include rape or the forcing of the intimacy, I'm referring to mutual feelings.(reply to this comment)

From Perry Monday, February 21, 2005, 10:45 (Agree/Disagree?) The problem with a situation where there may be "mutual feelings" between an adult and a minor is that there is always a risk of exploitation in any relationship, sexual or otherwise, where the power balance is uneven. In my opinion, there is always a power imbalance between an adult and a minor.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Sunday, February 20, 2005, 15:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think I'm quibbling mere semantics here when I point out that sex with a 14-year-old of either sex is NOT pedophilia. Pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent children. (I'm not condoning sex with minors, mind you)(reply to this comment)

From Big Sister Sunday, February 20, 2005, 16:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Right! Here's the definition from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0890420254/tgsthegoodstew/104-9013201-3147962 DSM Criteria for Pedophilia A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. C. The person is at least 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. So, there must be some additional category of criminality for people who do not fit the above criteria, and are not mentally disordered, but still acted immorally and illegally to have sexual contact with children who, due to age, inexperience and powerlessness, were unable to refuse or reject this wrongful contact. (reply to this comment)

from banal_commentator Friday, February 18, 2005 - 08:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Courtesy of mydelusion.com Oh, the memories! This describes the life of the teenager in present day TF. This is exactly how I spent my young teenage years. Ironically, the article is titled 'A Passion to Live.' Funny, cause the years I spent doing these things were the darkest and most depressing I have yet to experience, the only thing I had a passion for was sleep so I could forget the misery. They have their youth kidding themselves that they 'choose' to live like this: "I wake up every morning at 7:30. Till 11:00 I watch my 2-year-old nephew, put him on the potty, clap and hug him when he does what kids should do on potties. Do his schoolwork with him, watch a video etc. (I do this because my sister-in-law—his mother—isn’t the strongest of persons and her body requires a lot of sleep and rest. I also do this because my older brother—his father—has things to do around the house that I could not do. I do this because it’s the least I could do to “make it easy for others to be good.”) From 11:00 to 12:30, I cook lunch for the 14 people I live with. From 1:00 to 1:30 I do the dishes. from 2:00 till 3:30 I have time to myself. I write, read, draw, paint, sing, dance, go on walks, sleep—do anything I feel like doing. Then afternoon work starts which means I cook dinner, or do some other clean up jobs around this house. By the end of the day I am normally tired. I am craving sleep. This is my life; this is what I’d say I do on a normal day-to-day basis. Sure, maybe not all of it I LOVE doing, but we in the Family are raised to learn to serve others above yourself. We learn to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”........ http://www.myconclusion.com/archives/2005/02/04/a-passion-to-live/#more-379 (reply to this comment)

From xolox Sunday, February 20, 2005, 12:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Where in that busy schedule of raising relatives kids does this person get educated?(reply to this comment)

From openmind Sunday, February 20, 2005, 09:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I prefer this version: It is unwise to do unto others' as you would have them do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same. (George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903), Maxims for Revolutionists).(reply to this comment)

From conan Saturday, February 19, 2005, 16:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh my god! That brought back some terrible memories of what my life used to consist of. Why doesn't this person see the futility of doing what he's doing? Does he really think he's doing god's work by watching his nephew crap on a potty and then cooking two meals? I guess he must. I suppose there was a time when I would have considered a day like his to be a full day of 'work' and felt completely satisfied at day's end. He must not realize that he is himself living a "green door" existence. Not that the green door idea is original. Berg the Perv stole it from Jonathan Swift's "Gulliver's Travels" (part III - A Voyage to Laputa) which is by the way an excellent book! I can only hope that some of those who post on mydelusion are going to slowly start visiting our site and learning to understand things from a different, less subjective point of view. (reply to this comment)

From Harikari Voodoo Vandari Friday, February 18, 2005, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”........ ?? If only this cult would practice what they preach... I practice my sermon, "Do unto others, before they do unto you." (reply to this comment)

From Friday, February 18, 2005, 08:23 (Agree/Disagree?) She should be excommunicated for not getting any word time! Apparently no education either, although no 18-year old destined for being barefoot in the kitchen needs that. Anybody know what the cutoff age is for education in TF these days?(reply to this comment)

From Shane Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 05:52 (Agree/Disagree?) As far as I am aware, there isn't a cutoff age for education. Not to say that TF doesn't discourage/encourage different study ages. I think at the moment, children are "encouraged" to study till 16 and "discouraged" to continue after that. What a load of bollocks! My dad has always been big on education (formal education mind you, not family created courses crap), even when TF highly discouraged further education. Good on him I say! I felt so much better prepared to face the world after having a proper education than some of my friends who have left TF.(reply to this comment)

From banal_commentator Tuesday, February 22, 2005, 06:26 (Agree/Disagree?) In '99, every child up untill the age of 14 had the 'right' from the 'charter' to three hours of study time daily. 'Thank god for our superior education' (reply to this comment)

from banal_commentator Friday, February 18, 2005 - 07:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Courtesy of mydelusion.com This (reply to this comment)

from banal_commentator Friday, February 18, 2005 - 07:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Courtesy of mydelusion.com This is (reply to this comment)

from banal_commentator Friday, February 18, 2005 - 07:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Courtesy of mydelusion.com This (reply to this comment)

from Nick Friday, February 18, 2005 - 07:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Well the reason is obvious. Everyone that leaves the family is miserable and unloved. There is no real love outside of the family and no one in the system has any real friends. When you leave you usually end up flipping burgers and living a life of misery. You will then probably commit suicide or at the very least be miserable all the time. NOT!!!! Do you all remember the series called Traumatic Teen Testimonies or something like that. All it was for was to scare you into not leaving and that’s exactly what has happened to that poor kid. (reply to this comment)