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

from bones Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 12:16 (Agree/Disagree?) You can not assume that our experiences have been blown out of proportion any more than we can assume that TF has cleaned up their act. If I harmed you and repented only because I faced consequences for my actions would that rectify 13 years of wrong doing against you. I was born in TF. Fact my first sexual experience was at age 6 with a 30 year old. I was not allowed to eat dinner if I did not memorize a verse from the bible. I was spanked if I did not memorize a chapter from the bible once a week. Me and all the children in a home were exorcised and beaten over a 4 hour period, until we were able to speak in tounges, because a friend & I played DonQuixote with a stick and trashcan lids. None of this contains a hint of exaggeration and I could continue. You did not live the lives of anyone here so you should not make such uneducated assumptions. A kinder gentler Family now does not bring to justice those who have hurt so many. You seem to have suffered no abuse and I am happy for that. But you cannot deny what you did not experience. Please do not take this as an attack. I am not writing this in anger, rather, I am puzzled that someone would make a statement like that. I would ask you to question your own motives in making such a statement. To call people you don't know "liars", doesn't seem like something Jesus would do. (reply to this comment)

from back to reality Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:14 (Agree/Disagree?) What Zerby said in the summit jewels-it’s priceless all right! " I am sorry that we couldn't come out a little forthrightly in the Child Abuse Statement, bringing out the point that all sex between adults and minors is all bad, sinful, harmful or abusive. However the problem was that we didn't know how much we could say without putting the Family in legal risk. We would not have been afraid to admit more if we had known we could to it legally, but we had to be careful and try and protect the Family, and since at the time we were unable to get expert advice on that subject, we had to do the best we could.” “130. The Lord may be trying to force us to come out (Me; and now the second generation are calling for it too) more with our full beliefs on this matter and to take a stand for this. Of course this what we have talked about and debated (Me; too much masturbating I think) for months, how much we should say, how much could we say etc..” “The way we present this is very delicate, as on the one hand we could get in big trouble with the system & on the other hand if we handle it the wrong way there is a danger that the family will feel that we are saying the letters were wrong and what Dad (Berg) had to say in those letters was not right and was a mistake.” “We defiantly don’t believe (underlined) that and we don’t want to give that impression so we certainly have to avoid that at all costs.” 131. I’m really concerned about this subject, (Me; she’s concerned that TF kids will think we shouldn’t be touched by uncle slime-ball) not only how to present it to the public, but also because our JETTS and Teens seem to be overwhelmingly getting the idea that all of our sexual freedoms have been wrong. (Me; you don’t say!) Many of them already have that idea, that the letters must have been wrong and that Dad (Berg) had had been wrong all this time. They’re attitudes and what they are saying now are indicating this, that all sexual experiences they’ve had in the past were wrong. We are hearing it from all quarters and if we don’t put something in print about it, then I don’t know how we are going to dispel these wrong ideas. 132. We may have to eventually just come out and say “Look, the letters were not wrong, and loving acts of affection, even those with a sexual tone to them are not wrong in Gods eyes.” “However they are not right for us now for several reasons, number one is that in the eyes of the system they are illegal. (Me; boy aren’t they just) Number two, they usually have not born good fruit, not because of the act it’s self, but a relationship between much younger people and older ones seems to be too distracting. Number three, because of they’re misunderstandings (Me; our fault again) about the subject younger people may not be ready for any type of sexual involvement until they are older.” “135. Of course, I realise there is a certain risk in declaring there is nothing wrong with it in God’s eyes, and we’ve been hesitant to publicly proclaim that. (Me; we are still waiting) However I don’t know how can we get into any hotter water than we are in already…Even if the whole world believes it is wrong we may have to make a stand on it eventually and tell the truth about it.” “We’re even coming out and telling the system about the Jews now. This is about the only subject where we’re really going along with the system, we’re playing along with them, we’re acting like we believe that what we did was wrong…” “In other words we are saying by inference that we do believe it is wrong, because look we don’t do it anymore. No wonder all our teens are getting the idea that it was all evil.” “138. Perhaps we could all write something explaining all this to our kids. Of course our enemies would get it very quickly and use it against us, but maybe we need to take that risk for the sake of our children and the TRUTH” Photocopies found at http://www.newdaynews.com/ (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 20:26 (Agree/Disagree?) " I am sorry that we couldn't come out a little forthrightly in the Child Abuse Statement, bringing out the point that all sex between adults and minors is all bad, sinful, harmful or abusive. However the problem was that we didn't know how much we could say without putting the Family in legal risk. We would not have been afraid to admit more if we had known we could to it legally, but we had to be careful and try and protect the Family, and since at the time we were unable to get expert advice on that subject, we had to do the best we could. Translation: We would have made a strong statement against child molestation, but it would have put child molesters at risk of legal prosecution, and that would be bad. Now that we have expert advice on how to protect our beloved child molesters we would like to make a strong statement against child molestation, but that doesn't means it's wrong. The way we present this is very delicate, as on the one hand we could get in big trouble with the system & on the other hand if we handle it the wrong way there is a danger that the family will feel that we are saying the letters were wrong and what Dad (Berg) had to say in those letters was not right and was a mistake. Translation: We want to appease the authorities by saying that berg was wrong for encouraging child molestation, but we don't want to give the idea that berg was wrong to encourage child molestation. Its a tough spot "Theyre attitudes and what they are saying now are indicating this, that all sexual experiences theyve had in the past were wrong. We are hearing it from all quarters and if we dont put something in print about it, then I dont know how we are going to dispel these wrong ideas. " Translation: Our kids are becoming not okay with the fact that we had sex with them, what do we do to convince them it was okay? "because of theyre misunderstandings (Me; our fault again) about the subject younger people may not be ready for any type of sexual involvement until they are older. Translation: "Oh no, our kids are going to want to wait until consenting age to have sex! what do we do?" My spoofing is hardly necessary, their own words condemn them. (reply to this comment)

From Mad as Hell Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 22:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Very well done, I think you "condensed" this letter very well. You should put out a "Vandari Daily Bread" book, with various Family pubs deconstructed. "Life with Grandpa" would be a perfect target.(reply to this comment)

From Blockhead! Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 13:02 (Agree/Disagree?) All I gotta say: if she was my mother, I'd want her dead as well!(reply to this comment)

from criminal doctrines Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 06:14 (Agree/Disagree?) From freethinker reposted from NDN "The Family always SCREAMS "PERSECUTION!" when their cult's criminal acts or sick doctrines are exposed. They try to say that the "persecution is because of something that "detractors" or "apostates" cause. ALL THIS MEANS IS THAT MARIA IS DEFLECTING CRIMINAL DOCTRINE AND THE ATTEMPTS TO PROSECUTE THE WELL DEFENDED CULT AS BEING THE FAULT OF IT'S FORMER MEMBERS OR ANYONE LISTENING TO THEM. The real truth is that the "persecution" is "prosecution"- something that happens when you break the law, OR if you are as well defended as the family and professionally taught to LIE, LIE, and LIE some more, it may throw wrenches into the legal machine and the family may far too often come out without much harm done in a court of law. http://www.newdaynews.com/ I believe the bible verse is "Yea, and all that live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution". That seemed to be what happened to people in those days as Christianity had to be practiced in secret at times. There is no "Godly" issue that is causing the Family to be "persecuted". The problem is, the Family's top leaders, David Berg and Now Karen Zerby aka Maria, aka "Mama", etc. try to make child molestation (which includes fondling) a "loving thing". This is a doctrine of devils (and I am not even religious!) it certainly isn't anything of "God" or "Good". Therefore, if you are a current member reading this, please try to use your BRAIN and THINK about what you have been taught. Most likely you never really liked the doctrines of "sharing" and having to have sex with other people to "meet their needs" and spread around STDs and most of you probably think it is disgusting to think of fondling children as being anything done "in love". You are also probably embarrassed by the LJR. You don't have to live with that. You could get out and do legitimate missionary work where you wouldn't have to fear "prosecution" because prosecution is an entirely different thing from "persecution". " (reply to this comment)

from Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 06:06 (Agree/Disagree?) If the 'word' of Berg and Zerby cannot withstand criticism and opposition, then it is of little or no value. (reply to this comment)

from 60 minutes Saturday, October 15, 2005 - 17:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Sixty minutes Australia are doing a 15 min story sun 16 oct 7:30 pm std east Australian time. (reply to this comment)

from Jerseygirl Wednesday, October 12, 2005 - 03:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, I'd forgotten about the ugly side of this site--people like you. I'm in the middle of my Psych rotation and seeing the compassion elicited from complete strangers for a fraction of the horror some of us have been through is astonishing. Fuck you and everyone else who has to find some kind of superiority in putting people down for the things they struggle with. Again--fuck you. (reply to this comment)

from SeanSwede Tuesday, October 11, 2005 - 09:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry kid but you have no idea about what you are blabbing about. What are you 20? Listen pal, your talking to real former TF members who lived and breathed TF since birth and where there during all of the hardcore times. The Family in its present state in which you live in now is just a poor lame excuse for an existens. You are still considerd a child in the real world untill you can start thinking on your own, with both halfs of your brain. Don`t go wasting your spit on this site `cause its not appreciated or intressting for anyone, anyhow! Come back when you have left TF! That goes for all of you TF members. (reply to this comment)

from cultic intimidation Monday, October 10, 2005 - 13:07 (Agree/Disagree?) "I think that if TFI international was as half as bad as you guys say it is it would have gone under a long time ago." Check out this link to find out some of the reasons why. http://www.rickross.com/reference/cults_in_our_midst/cults_in_our_midst5.html (reply to this comment)

from good quote Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:49 (Agree/Disagree?) "It may seem pretty naive," Siegelman said, "but the only way you can fight a closed society is open, direct communication. And instruction that the world will not tolerate this." (reply to this comment)

From Monday, October 10, 2005, 12:52 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general431.html(reply to this comment)

from Monday, October 10, 2005 - 11:00 (Agree/Disagree?) "Within the cultic environment I am describing, ideological fervour is further strengthened by the absence of dissent. Imagine, if you can, a senior DUP member daring to suggest that Gerry Adams has some redeeming qualities. The reaction of his or her colleagues can be readily imagined. It is even more difficult to imagine a group of terrorists listening patiently while one of their number offers the view that ‘maybe bombing London is not such a good idea.’ Rather, any deviation from the official script is met by a combination of silence, ridicule, and yet louder assertions of the group’s dominant ideology. Ridicule is a powerful social force. It strengthens people’s faith in their belief system. Rather than risk becoming marginalised, most of us wish to affiliate even more closely with those groups that we have come to regard as important. We therefore seek to avert criticism by agreeing whole-heartedly with the group’s general ideology. Secondly, when no one is openly critical we tend to imagine, wrongly, that those around us are more certain of their views than they are. The absence of obvious doubt from anyone else quells any reservations that we ourselves may be harbouring, and tempts us into ever more enthusiastic expressions of agreement with the prevailing orthodoxy. We reason that, if something was wrong, someone other than ourselves would be drawing attention to it. Psychologists call the process ‘consensual validation.’ The overall effect is predictable. What seems mad to an outsider becomes the conventional wisdom of the group. All sorts of dismal group decisions, including many made by business and Government, can be partly explained by this dynamic. People have been attempting – and failing – to imagine what must have been going through the minds of the bombers in their last minutes. Surely they must have looked around, and had some glimmer of doubt? It is necessarily speculative, but my guess is that any such feeling would have been muted. Within cults, the gap between rhetoric and reality is so pronounced that, of course, doubts do occasionally intrude. But cult members are taught a variety of automated responses to quell the demon of dissent. For example, a member of the Unification Church who suddenly doubts that the Reverend Moon is the ordained representative of God on earth might chant ‘Satan get behind me’. It is likely, I think, that the London bombers spent their last moments in a final silent scream, designed to obliterate in their minds the pending screams of their soon to be victims. It is a sound we all must now attempt to deal with. What therefore can be done? It is certainly clear that where cultic groups engage in illegal activities the full force of the law should be deployed against them. It less clear that outlawing any group deemed cultic is the way forward. Who, ultimately, is to decide on the difference between, say, your legitimate religion and my view of a cult? Freedom can never be protected by legislating that it must always be used wisely. But a greater awareness of the dark side of group dynamics would be a start. We must become suspicious of those who claim certainty, we must challenge all authority figures and we must cherish dissent: it is these responses that diminish the leaders of cults, rather than the society in which we live. The ideology is therefore critical, and cults are adept at reinforcing its power. Members spend more and more time talking only to each other. They engage in rituals designed to reinforce the dominant belief system. Language degenerates into a series of thought stifling clichés which encourages other actions that are consistent with the ideology of the cult. In particular, they form a demand for purity on the part of the members. The world becomes divided into the absolutely good and the absolute evil, a black and white universe in which there is only ever the one right way to think, feel and behave. Members are immunised against doubt – a mental state in which any behaviour is possible, providing it is ordained by a leader to whom they have entrusted their now blunted moral sensibilities." http://www.rickross.com/reference/alqaeda/alqaeda62.html (reply to this comment)

from sound familiar? Monday, October 10, 2005 - 10:50 (Agree/Disagree?) "Cults promise salvation. Instead of boredom - noble and sweeping goals. Instead of existential anxiety - structure and certainty. Instead of alienation - community. Instead of impotence - solidarity directed by all-knowing leaders. Too good to be true? In 1978, 912 men, women and children died in the People's Temple murder/suicides, culminating prior practice suicide drills. In 1984, the European Parliament's Cottrell Resolution called on member states to pool information about cults as a prelude to developing "ways of ensuring the effective protection of Community citizens." In 1987, the Israeli Knesset issued a 500-page report on cults. Contemporary Cults: Why Now? Cults sprout up when traditional values and structures of a society are weakened. The 1960s spawned a counterculture that romanticized drug usage, revolution in general (the sexual revolution in particular), and retreat to communes. As baby boomers entered their teens, America's fertility rate plummeted, while the rate of divorces and adolescent suicides began to climb. During the 1980s, the counterculture mainstreamed; drug use continued unromanticized, now at high school level. The sexual revolution became legitimized through legislation and "safe sex" education. People lost interest in family: marrying less and later, cohabiting more without marriage, and having increased out-of-wedlock births. Western European societies with similar trends have been marked by cultic activity. West Germany is in a phase of negative population growth, and cohabitation with out-of-wedlock childbearing is up markedly in Sweden. What Cults Want Cults want wealth and power for the leadership, to be supplied by members. Wealth may include: * transfer of cash, real estate, and cars, * profits, from exploitation of members' labor in cult-owned businesses, and * funds raised deceptively from relatives and other non-members. Power may include: * manipulation of all relationships, work, or schooling to solely the needs of the cult, * assignment of city and country of residence, * regulation of pregnancy and sexual favors, * behavioral/ideologic controls via group punishments, or threatened expulsions, and * limitation of members' opportunities to sleep, to pursue individual interests, or simply to reflect. Leaders exhort members to proselytize; predictably, more members mean more wealth and power for the leaders. What Cults Don't Want Cults are uninterested in altruism as a moral imperative. Most have self-serving moralities to benefit the organization and its leadership in particular. Individual fulfillment is irrelevant. Pseudoaltruistic activity helps image building. Cults don't want high overhead. Members in cult enterprises may be underpaid or unpaid, work in unsafe environments, or have no provision for medical care. No cult wants its inner workings exposed, although sophisticated cults may curry media interest or even employ public relations consultants and ad agencies to manage their image. Cults do not want to be called "cults." Thus, a definition is proposed to clarify the discussion in this article. Cults and Thought Reform: Definitions and Studies Cults are groups using thought reform to recruit and control members, by employing the following: * Miracle - ideology imputing miraculous power to leaders and/or activities. * Mystery - secrecy obscuring actual beliefs and practices. * Authority - claims on members' time, talents, bodies, or property to meet group needs. Thought reform is a hyperefficient indoctrination achieved when secrecy impairs indoctrinees' awareness of what is happening to them and what they are becoming - thus, there is no full, informed consent. Brainwashing or mind control are popular terms for thought reform.No group like to be called a cult. Some groups ignore being called cults, others launch personal attacks on their critics. Some have taken a more gentle approach, explaining that they are a misunderstood new religion, as were the Christians martyred in Rome. However, early Christians fully disclosed their scriptures and practices to potential converts. When persecuted, Christians did not resort to deceptive recruiting; they temporarily practiced in secret. Some cults suggest their unpopularity reflects nativist prejudice against minority groups. This may sometimes be true, but ignores understandable disapproval to objectionable or illegal cult activity. Applying the definition presented in this article, a cult may function with members living in the community, wearing conventional attire, and holding down jobs. However, closer examination would show such members to be obsessively proselytizing or raising funds. They would be systematically misrepresenting the nature of their activities and their groups' activities to nonmembers or would not be fully aware of the nature of the group to which they are devoted." http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing14.html (reply to this comment)

from Monday, October 10, 2005 - 10:41 (Agree/Disagree?) "In a closed system of logic, criticism or complaints are handled by showing the subject that he or she is defective, not the organization. Observations may be turned around and argued to mean the opposite of what the critic intended. When a subject questions or doubts a tenet or rule, attention is called to factual information that suggests some internal contradiction within the belief system or a contradiction with what the subject has been told: the criticism or observation is "turned around" and the subject made to feel he or she is wrong. In effect the subject is told, "You are always wrong; the system is always right." The system refuses to be modified except by executive order. In addition, by keeping a subject in a non-informed state, he or she functions in an environment to which he or she is forced to adapt in a series of steps, each sufficiently minor so that the subject does not notice change in him- or herself and does not become aware of the goals of the program until late in the process (if ever). The tactics of a thought reform program are organized lo destabilize individuals' sense of self by getting them to drastically reinterpret their life's history, radically alter their world view, accept a new version of reality and causality, and develop dependency on the organization, thereby being turned into a deployable agent of the organization operating the thought reform program. Types of psychological responses Not everyone who is exposed to a thought reform system is successfully manipulated nor does everyone respond with major reactive symptoms. Some authors described the psychological responses and casualties seen in the first-generation groups. No definitive figures about casualty rates for second-generation programs can be offered. However, scattered anecdotal reports in the psychiatric literature, the number of people seeking treatment, counseling, and other forms of help after leaving thought reform programs, and the growing number of persons seeking compensation for damages through litigation suggests that many experience different degrees and durations of distress, disability, and dysfunction following such programs. " http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing21.html (reply to this comment)

from Monday, October 10, 2005 - 10:31 (Agree/Disagree?) This sounds a bit like what you are going through now.. 'siege mentality' where you side with the abuser's. Taken from an interview with Margaret Singer Ph.D. Nexus: Lets talk more about how abusers carefully construct conditions that increase the older person's vulnerability to persuasion. You've already mentioned isolating the older person and creating dependency. Are there others? MS: Yes, and they often reach outrageous proportions. Another approach is to create a "siege mentality," which is the illusion that there are enemies lurking everywhere. Nexus: In the cases we see, it's often service providers who are made out to be the villains. MS: Right, they start bad mouthing the social worker or the visiting nurse. They'll make the person afraid to take the medicine that the visiting nurse brings or tells them that the police can't be trusted. They tell them that these professionals are going to take away their houses, pensions, and social security, and that they are going to put them in nursing homes. That's the "siege mentality." Nexus: Sometimes victims get very protective of their abusers. MS: Because they are so afraid. Because they buy into the siege. Nexus: How do you "rescue" these people? MS: You usually need to find a relative who will come in and get control. Once you get the brainwashers or control artists away, you can hire legitimate people and start bringing the person back to reality. You say, "I know this is going to make you feel badly, but I want you to know that 'Bill' lied to you. This happened not because anything was wrong with you, but because he is a very deceptive person." And when they want to know where the poor boy is, you tell them, "Well, he's not a poor boy. He's being well taken care of in the state prison." Of course its harder when the relatives are wishy-washy about getting involved. Its like the parents of kids who get picked up by cults who keep saying, "Maybe he really wants to be with the cult at the airport soliciting funds." Their counterparts say, "Maybe grandma really loves this old buzzard." Eventually, in the successful cases, the relatives catch on to the fact that the older person is being held like a hostage and is being manipulated. Nexus: You make it sound easy, getting the abuser away from the victim. Sometimes these people are very enmeshed. MS: Yes, you may have heard about the Stockholm Syndrome which was identified in 1973 after four people who were held captive in a Stockholm bank vault for six days became attached to the bank robbers. What was astonishing was that the captives said that the police were picking on the bank robbers. That was the first time that the world really recognized that when someone has been held captive and they see that the captor had the power to harm them more but didn't, they develop a strong feeling of gratefulness toward them. It's true in domestic violence, as well. A bond develops between the victim and the person who beats her because after he's stopped, she's grateful that he didn't kill her. And the abuser almost always apologizes. Nexus: Does vulnerability to undue influence reflect intelligence? MS: No. It has nothing to do with intelligence. But the more cognitively impaired someone is, the more easily they can be manipulated because they forget things and they don't trust their memories. But you can make anybody believe almost anything if you are enough of a con artist. to read more click on the link http://www.rickross.com/reference/singer/singer6.html (reply to this comment)

from Monday, October 10, 2005 - 08:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Where is the "this site sucks section" on Myconclusion.com? (reply to this comment)

from memememe (Mark) Monday, October 10, 2005 - 01:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Hello All, I was hesitant to respond to you on the message board for the mere fact that I don't want my every word to be scrutinized and criticized as I'm sure they will be, but I will because I made the mistake already of posting once. And I did not express myself correctly; this being for the simple fact that I am only human and sometimes fail to get the point across that I want to. And tend to just blurt my mind, or in this case, write it down. And after re-reading over my post I realize that I left a lot of areas open for possible misinterpretation, for which I apologize. I admit that this article was written in a moment of anger and frustration and was neither well worded nor well expressed. You also have to understand that in accusing TFI you are accusing both me and the ones I love, so my reaction was not one of joy. I cannot officially recant everything I said, because in doing so I would be agreeing with all that you have said against my article, which I do not. So while I cannot undo what is done, by posting my article, I do apologize for anything that I said that could be interpreted as offensive or insensitive. Sincerely, Mark. (reply to this comment)

From "Brimstone" Branch Friday, October 14, 2005, 11:08 (Agree/Disagree?) "So while I cannot undo what is done, by posting my article, I do apologize for anything that I said that could be interpreted as offensive or insensitive." What kind of a Family disciple goes around apologizing like this? You serve Maria, the Insensitive Mosquito Queen and follow Berg, the Offensive Prophet of Pedophilia, for crying out loud. Crickey, no wonder the Family is going down faster than a whore on rollerskates! TFI has become a place for lukewarm, lilly-livered, mamby-pamby, System ass-kissing, church christians! (reply to this comment)

From Truth-junkie Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 14:50 (Agree/Disagree?) "I don't want my every word to be scrutinized and criticized" Scrutiny and Criticism is how the truth is sought out. A statement that can stand up to Scrutiny and Criticism is a true statement. Your statement is a shotgun blast. It says nothing solid at all. (reply to this comment)

From Fist Friday, October 14, 2005, 08:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I think we've got a politician amongst us. Is he attempting to revise his previous statement in purpose of salvaging any possible signs of intelligence? Thats what CLE will teach you or was it the classical system; BEKA? (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 14:37 (Agree/Disagree?) If you are the Mark Im thinking of I'm gonna shit myself.(reply to this comment)

From question Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 12:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Is it possible for you to say which bit/bits you didn't agree with? Don't you think it says a lot about the Family and it's members that they can't hold a conversation with us and disscuss these issues? http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Letter_to_Anonymous_YAs_and_SGAs_from_Mama_and_Peter "I know that Mama and Peter said in both "Stay on the Wall" and "None of These Things Moved Me" that they don't have the time, neither has the Lord shown them to answer these accusations one by one. But I think that's, in effect, avoiding a direct challenge. To me, it made them look like the cat got their tongue and they couldn't face up to what really happened. Explaining it away with "The Lord told us not to get into this" just didn't cut it for me. If this is new policy for Family members to say "I heard from the Lord on this and he said I shouldn't discuss it with you", then, hey, I could wiggle my way out of ever having to confess or deny anything. Mama and Peter are being challenged. James penn made direct attacks at both of them. He challenged them in his letter with his "Say it ain't so, Joe." When you're challenged like that you either say in a husky male baritone voice "It ain't so", or you say "It IS so! I'm sorry. I was wrong.", but you don't just keep quiet when you're challenged like that. It makes them look like they got caught red-handed. And what's worse is when they try to change the subject and avoid the simple yes-or-no answer to a direct, yes-or-no question." (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 10:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Somehow I'm inclined to think you don't actually understand much of what you said. Doesn't it worry you - even a bit - that your education is so limited that you have trouble writing half a page without expressing yourself comprehensively? Some of us still have relatives and family in the family (TFI-rose by a different name), some of whom we also still love. But put it this way, if by attacking the family, I attack you or anyone else close to you who feels the way you do in regards to the Family, then, good sir, my reaction to your indignation is a wholehearted FUCKOFF!!! I hate the family, and if that means that by association I hate you, or anyone close to you (in the instance that they too love and are loyal to the Family) THEN SO FUCKING BE IT! The Family feels no remorse for their behaviour towards their own unwanted by-products, the casualties of their glorious legacy are scattered about the full length of their short history and will remain its lasting epitaph. Some of those casualties were people that we loved and cared about. So please tell me why I should give two solitary FLYING FUCKS about how you feel in regards to how we feel towards you beloved life-sucking, socially abhorrent, parasitic 'Family'? Maybe some small part of the family will survive the shitstorm that's coming (oh, don't tell me, persecution makesyou stronger?). Do I care that you exist? Do I?? I'm not even gonna do anything, I'm just gonna sit back and watch your psycho-fuck 'Family' eat itself from the inside, and you just feel secure with those wonderful loved ones of yours! (reply to this comment)

From Fist Friday, October 14, 2005, 08:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Baxtorious Artoriusanus Ruttorianus!!!! You amaze me with your casual spew of formal and informal verbatum... We must wash the omnipotent Emperor.... With MOTHERFUCKING-FLYING soap... p.s. I think the author of this controversial and " Intelligent" letter is none other than the son of Micah and Mary if im not mistaken... Its a needle in a haystack ,but I've lost the lottery so many times it might be my Lucky MotherFUCKING day... Man I need some Mary Jane.... Where Am I..... BAAAAAAA..... Oh I remember....(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Friday, October 14, 2005, 09:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, when in history have you ever played the fucking lottery? And you worry me with the baaaaaing! Wales is rubbing off!! I will not countenance a welsh brother! (reply to this comment)

From Fist Friday, October 14, 2005, 10:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Welsh.... dude do I looky a little bit wale-sh? ....WHy I oughta..... The Lottery? One speaketh through the medium of Metaphors... Man this country is in serious need of a coup and the usurpation and installation of a communist bourgois government... Get those damn proles out of there... Hey, have you seen Cronenbergs 'Naked Lunch'? Hashcakes? Anyone? (reply to this comment)

From Lance Sunday, October 16, 2005, 02:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm assume that you're talking about the movie adaption of Burroughs novel 'Naked Lunch'?(reply to this comment)

From Fist Sunday, October 16, 2005, 08:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I think Cronenberg only made one William S. Burroughs text to film that is called Naked Lunch.. Anyway... (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 08:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Anyone that marxist must be welsh!(reply to this comment)

From Fist Saturday, October 15, 2005, 19:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh yeah what was the name of that Stuff magazine chick at least her Pseudo-nym? (reply to this comment)

From Fist Saturday, October 15, 2005, 15:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I must state that I ignore the abusive comments which you have pelted me with. I will however add that you, good sir, are in denial concerning the need of a "welsh communist bourgois" movement.. Imagine a bunch of Fat, ginger, beer bellied and lamb fattened welsh aristocrisy storming the countryside screaming bloody murder and lynching the poor, fat,ginger, beer bellied and lamb fattened welsh pleb!!! It would be Ludicrously Fantastical!!! haha. Old Joke....(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of I will tell dad that you are shagging sheep (reply to this comment)

From Fist Sunday, October 16, 2005, 08:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Your a freak... you have to much time!!! Whats wrong with Sheep?(reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of I will tell dad that you are shagging (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of I will tell dad that you are (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of I will tell dad that you (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of I will tell dad that (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of I will tell dad (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of I will tell (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of I will (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of I (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies of (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the Taffies (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away from the (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay away (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Christopher, this is yourelder brother speaking! Stay (reply to this comment)

From Baxter Saturday, October 15, 2005, 22:56 (Agree/Disagree?) What the fuck.....?(reply to this comment)

From Fist Friday, October 14, 2005, 08:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually It may be Mark from Nagoya... Who now lives.....Somewhere. Shit now Im really shooting in the dark.... Baaaaaaa...... STFU!!!(reply to this comment)

From The last state. Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 09:48 (Agree/Disagree?) http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/All_of_These_Things_Moved_Me#Maria.27s_Rape_Relief_Center Mark please read about Mene, Berg's grandaughter who he rapped repeatedly. (reply to this comment)

From Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 12:25 (Agree/Disagree?) My god! I find it ridiculous that there are still people in TFI who do not know that Berg was a child molester and a perverted drunk. How could they still be so blind to the truth? I mean when you believe in something, and you hear rumors that it may be wrong, wouldn’t you be desperate to find out the truth before continuing to belie in it? Especially when were talking about child rapping and molesting!!!! This just leads me to believe that these stupid ignorant people, believe in the crap!!!! (reply to this comment)

From 28 year old Tuesday, October 11, 2005, 05:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Mark, If your profile is right, you're 20 years old. Which means you would have experienced the "cleaned up" version of TF and probably never experienced sexual abuse. If you're honest with yourself though, you should remember the physical and emotional abuse that TF put kids through during the "school days." But I think that's too much to ask at this point because it takes time after leaving the cult to even realized how much abuse went on. TFI's environment keeps you in the dark and in denial. Doesn't this sound familiar: "You'd better not 'doubt;' you'd better read only materials sanctioned by the leaders, you'd better spend a couple hours of your day with your "husband" to convince yourself that you're in the 'best' environment in the world." I'm sure you're doing a lot of good. I did a lot of good in TFI on the field away from the leaders, sacrificing everything to help orphans. It was doing the good that got me thinking and eventually leaving TF. I couldn't tell people about who I worked with without them bolting and shunning me. If I wanted to help people why be ashamed of who I was affiliated with? It was then that I first started realizing that TF's sordid past was not normal. Isn't there a verse in the New Testament that says something like "don't let your good be evil spoken of?" As long as you stay with TFI, your "good" will look "evil." It not your fault though, it's the actions of the leaders that you continue to revere that put TFI in that position. (reply to this comment)

From mia1 Monday, October 10, 2005, 15:07 (Agree/Disagree?) hey just a question, did you have a little love up time with ur jesus before u came here? Or did you "pow-wow" with ur teamwork before you dared enter the "lions den"? U better make sure to the ur "antenna is straight" and ur heart right with ur cock-loving lord almighty! Oh, and ur apology is not sincere! what u wrote previously is sincere! And everthing you said was offensive. I think the problem most people have with the family is the people who LEAD it. Not ur precious friends and loved ones unless they fall into the above catagory then I personally don't give a F--k about them. (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Monday, October 10, 2005, 09:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Mark, you said in your article, "Even though were mistakes made, TFI's doing fine now". First of all, when did performing oral sex on a 2-year-old, taking photos if it and publishing those photos (http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Image:My_flirty_fish_pg_3.jpg) get bumped down from being a crime to being a mere mistake? Secondly, losing 10% of your membership every year for the last 10 years (http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Statistics) doesn't count as "doing fine now".(reply to this comment)

From moon beam Monday, October 10, 2005, 07:40 (Agree/Disagree?) "You also have to understand that in accusing TFI you are accusing both me and the ones I love..." Mark-You have to understand by blindly and obediently reading and following Berg's and Zerby's shit, you are defending some serious child abusers, child abusers who have hurt both me and ones I love. So what if we want to come here to communicate, Find lost family and friends, share experiences, poems, news, offer support, and chat... what is your problem with this? You would have us all around the world on our own? We have come from no stable "home", TF saw to that! Many don't have communication with parents and family, who made that possible? oh right, it was your leadership who practise shunning and live in secret and run every few months. There is a point in speaking out, there was a point in 95 in court when the Judge got Zerby and Peter to realise they were in big doo-doo if they didn't at least make it sound like they had recanted Bergs Mo letters. Did you ever consider that changes made in TF over the last 20 years are due to pressure from those speaking out? Or how hard that was for them? Which brings us to David Branch/Stephen schafe and the rise of the prophets-basically they want to go back to David Berg's teachings and practise "sex with children" and "one wife " but because Zerby has been so busy trying to deny and downplay the whole thing and off course appear more respectable than they are-mainly due to survivors speaking out and the damage the UK court case caused-she has appeared to the David believers as "betraying" David Berg, the man who anointed her. There was already a rebellion back in the 70's in the UK where the two sides of the camp(one for following David as a prophet and spreading fire and brimstone etc.. the other where the power stayed in more democratic fashion.) Well guess which side won? David Berg! So can I ask you a question- do you believe that David berg was wrong in advocating child abuse? http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=10&ID=2399 If so, why all this denying of the abuse that they know full well went on-why do they still even now call us liars.(they have trained you well) The reason? they risk going to prison for their crimes. If not, then why doesn’t Zerby "stand up in the last days and declare this "TRUTH!" to the world like Berg told her she would have to do? Does that sound so wonderful to you? I don't think it's wonderful one bit-it's disgusting. The pathetic thing is that after all they're dirty secrets were revealed in the UK court case, Zerby and Peter had every chance to come clean, admit David Berg was a paedophile and address the members with the truth. They could have started the process of healing by resigning and parents could start to listen to there children instead of demanding their silence and denying their 'truth'. How many families have you torn apart, while claimimg to be the "best Family in th world"? Instead you burn all the incriminating evidence and teach your members to lie to the system -while remaining true to David berg in your hearts- general public, courts, media and officials. That's some serious shit. So if I want to take my story to the world to combat your vicious lies and dissertations than I am proud to have been of service. If you loved your family why let it be run by these monsters? Demand Zerby and Peter to address this problem seriously. Write in your OHR report under "Trials and battles” speak out in a meeting-do some thing, because you have a lot to loose. You may be under a delusion that they will listen to you. They have and will trample on anyone that gets in their way. I hope this is not another hit-and-run as I have seen you ask some vague questions and they were answered, why don't you answer mine and discuss my points? (reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Monday, October 10, 2005, 05:34 (Agree/Disagree?) By defending TFI, you are defending leaders who are guilty of destroying the life of my sister. You seem to be open to the truth. Ask them whether or not it's the case that "Grandpa" was having regular "dates" with Davida, Mene, Armendria, Kristi and Bethy. The man (berg) was a raving perverted pedophile and Zerby and her ilk have all severely molested children. Open your eyes Mark.(reply to this comment)

from someone who thinks you are lost Monday, October 10, 2005 - 00:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you a big brave End-time-teen, going online to attack the big bad systemites? Wow we are really impressed, we will be quiet now, thank you for enlightening us, you truth-sayer you. Punk-bitch (reply to this comment)

from tuneman7 Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 22:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Grade "A" ass clownery if you ask me. Severe nonsense mongering foolishness. I can't even be bothered to write anything more on this type of nonsense. It's amazing, the world is full of peple who believe their own propaganda. When faced with two decisions the one that prompts for the least personal change is most often the one chosen. We allow ourselves to be prisoners of our own fears most of the time. Well, this dude is in for a rude awakening one of these days. I think the fact that the top leaders have evaded prosecution emboldens all of the nonsensical followers. (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Sunday, October 09, 2005, 23:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Very well said. Shame that the truth of your words will be the cause of their ineffectiveness.(reply to this comment)

from Shaka Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 22:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I would say that if I ever ran into you I would let you go on your merry way and not pummel you till you stopped twitching but then I wouldn't be being completely honest with myself or the world. (reply to this comment)

From a man laughing aloud Sunday, October 09, 2005, 23:20 (Agree/Disagree?) You too funny Shaka, HAHAHAHA(reply to this comment)

from Don't kid yourself Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 16:56 (Agree/Disagree?) You wouldn't be worth the bullet much less the hunt. (reply to this comment)

from AndyH Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 16:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Your article is confusing. If all we are doing is feeding each other crap, then why did you bother to post? Who is trying to destroy the family? Cant we just post shit? Whats your motivation? This site is for us. We can criticize all we want. It's hardly fair that we cant post on my conclusion but you can come on here and say whatever you want. Aren't you forbidden by Mama Maria to visit this site? Bad Child of god, very bad. (reply to this comment)

from mia1 Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 16:47 (Agree/Disagree?) hey meme, who the fuck are u to come and tell me that since the fam is so great now, we should all "get real". For ur information every single day that goes by does nothing but remind me how the family messed with my life. Not a day goes by that I am reminded that I am different, and its not in a good way. Not a day goes by that I am not reminded that once upon a time I believed in a lie and it almost destroyed my life and the life of my children. It doesn't matter that the family is doing all these good works, their foundation is built on the blood of the innocents. They have not realized the hurt that their so-called beliefs have caused on so many. Tell us ur name, it's ridiculous be afraid, my name is Maria and I don't fear you. I think ur greatest fear is that what we say is true. And that's the true reason why you hide. (reply to this comment)

from JohnnieWalker Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 16:28 (Agree/Disagree?) You said, "But asking what your point is is kind of a stupid question considering that not even you guys agree along those lines." And that's supposed to be a bad thing? I think the technical term for a group of people who all agree on every subject is "cult". Seeing as how we all left one, I'd say it's a definite sign of having moved on when you can express your own opinions while listening to people with opinions opposed to your own. I also think that you've come to this site with the intention of giving it a label and lumping everyone into one easy-to-manage box. I suggest you come back again when you've matured a bit and are able to handle the fact that not everyone must share the same opinions as you. (reply to this comment)

from Vandarii Sunday, October 09, 2005 - 16:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Does this article have a point? You do realize that you don't bring up any facts or examples to support your assertions, you state a few opinions and then just declare them to be true. What "good" is TFI doing in the world, and who says they're not hurting anyone? How do you "definitely" know any of this? They you go on to say: "...I don't mean this to downplay your guys experiences..." Yes actually, that is exactly what you mean this to do. Otherwise why write the article? (reply to this comment)