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

from Birds of a Feather Friday, January 19, 2007 - 23:27 (Agree/Disagree?) "I found this article a couple of years ago in my college's library. It was published in 1970 and comes from the Journal of the American Society of Psychosomatic Dentistry and Medicine.(?!)I believe this is the same article that was originally published in the Journal of Psychedelic Drugs. "A Case Study of the Charles Manson Group Marriage Commune"* by David E. Smith, M.D.** and Alan J. Rose*** Much has been written about communal living in areas outside the United States and in countries such as Israel, where the Kibbutim have flourished. In these instances, communal practices relative to sexual behavior and child rearing have been described in great detail. America, too, has a long history of communal living, primarily involving religious groups such as the Amish and the Mennonites. Recently, however, through the national media, the dominant culture in the United States has been made aware of a new style of commune which has evolved primarily in America's "hippie subculture." Unfortunately, we know relatively little about this pattern of alternative cooperative living. These "hippie" communes can be categorized into six general types (Crash Pad Type, Drug and Non-Drug Family Type, Drug and Non-Drug Marriage Type, and Self-Contained Rural Type. Staff members of the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic spent the summer of 1969 studying the health needs of communes in Northern California and Oregon. It was reported that there were over 200 cooperative living groups in the area alone involving several thousand peopkle. However, beyond superficial description, little study has been made of the characteristics of communes despite the rapidly growing number of people involved in this life style. The purpose of this study is to describe in detail one specific type of commune- the Group Marriage Commune. The common denominators in this type of commune are polygamous sexual practices involving all members of group and cooperative child rearing. Following the preparation of this manuscript, the central figure in this report, Charles Manson, was arrested in connection with the Sharon Tate murders. However, it would be impudent to comment on the murders until Manson's trial has been completed. The "group marriage" is not new, of course, and has been practiced by various societies throughout history. Middle class white American youth participating in a group marriage is relatively new, however, particularly in that it represents a direct affront to the dominant culture's expressed moral code. This paper then, will present a case study of a particular commune of the group marriage type. Research Methodology We gathered our data primarily by participant-observation techniques. Both authors worked with commune dwellers at the Haight-Ashbury clinic, and observed a variety of urban and rural communes. In addition, Rose lived in two types of communes, the crash pas type and the group marriage type, with the latter experience being the primary resource for the study. This paper is primarily descriptive with little effort being made to quantitate. Participation in the communes at the time of involvement was not associated with academic observation and only after leaving the communal setting was thought given to description. Structure of the Group Marriage Commune Most group marriage communes that survive for a long period of time have a "father figure" as the spiritual leader of the group. The group marriage commune under study had a "father figure" (Charles Manson), a 35-year-old white male with a past history of involvement with the law. The age range of these communal dwellers was about 16 to 34, the core group consisted of approximately 20 people, including 14 women. Although there were three people with some college education, including one person having a Master's degree, members disapproved of the whole process of formal institutional education in America. They believed that education was a means of conditioning or "brain washing" a young person with the values and mores of the dominant culture. Manson felt that a person should be "open to change" and willing to accept new values, but insisted that once someone has been indoctrinated by society, his value system became rigid. Approximately 20 members of this commune referred to themselves as a "family," but we have chosen the term "group marriage commune" because of the polygamous sexual relations, but affairs outside the "family" were rarely endorsed. In cases of sexual conflict, Manson made the final judgment as to what constituted acceptable behavior. In addition, there were many "sympathetic cousins" (a term we chose to represent those people who had been greatly influenced by the group marriage communes and who had adopted some of the beliefs, although not living with the "core group"). The "cousins," however, often visited with the family for extended periods of time, although they were all involved in their own "scenes" in other parts of the state. Brief Description of the Leader Manson was thirty-five years of age, and had no college education. He was an extroverted, persuasive individual who served as absolute ruler of the group marriage commune. What he sanctioned was approved by the rest of the group, but what he disapproved was forbidden. Tales of Manson's sexual prowess were related to all new members. One of the most popular stories concerned his daily activities before the group moved to the ranch, and wjile they were being supported by a "wealthy cousin." One popular story often told was that Manson would get up in the morning, make love, eat breakfast, make love, and go back to sleep. He would wake later, and make love, have lunch, make love, and go back to sleep. Waking up later, he would make love, eat dinner, make love, and go back to sleep- only to wake up in the middle of the night wanting to have intercourse again. Such stories, although not validated, helped him maintain his leadership role. Charlie had a persuasive mystical philosophy placing great emphasis on the belief that people id not die and that infant consciousness was the ultimate state. However, Charlie's mysticism often became delusional and he on occasion referred to himself as "God" or "God and the Devil." Charlie could probably be diagnosed as an ambulatory schizophrenic. Location and Economic Support The economic level of this commune was low and there was no stable source of income. Money would be brought into the group by new members or througb gifts from the "cousins." Gifts of food, money and clothing, also came from friends and acquaintances of the group, although such presents were rare. At the time of our observation, the group lived on a "ranch" which had as its sole means of support money coming from the rental of horses for riding. The group marriage commune worked on the ranch in return for living quarters,. These living quarters were probably illegal, since the buildings had been condemned, but this was of little concern to the group. The group usually awoke at about 7:00 a.m. in order to feed the horses and put them out to pasture before the first riders arrived. They finished breakfast and had the horses saddled by 8:00 a.m. Some people stayed near the office in order to act as guides on the trails while some were prepared to saddle more horses. Others cleaned the stalls and prepared the hay and oats so that the barn would be ready when the horses came back. Some lounged or made love most of the day until dinner time. The group usually gathered after dinner and smoked marijuana while singing or talking. Drug use, however, was primarily recreational and had little to do with the central philosophy of the group. Because they had little money, food procurement was a daily "adventure" (a term used by the group because of the risks involved in getting food). Two or three people would take the ranch truck to the nearby town. Parking behind the grocery store or supermarket they proceeded to rummage through the garbage bins. Meat which had begun to discolor, dented cans of food, open bags of fruit and vegetables, etc., made up the daily meals. The term "adventure" was used because such forays were illegal; a prevalent rumor had it that the stores sprinkled rat poison or lime over the food in an attempt to discourage such procurement methods. Fourteen to twenty people per day were fed two meals, seven days a week. This commune was not a "vegetarian commune" nor was it involved in Eastern relgion as were some of the communes previously studied. LSD-induced psychedelic philosophy was not a major motivational force. Attitudes Toward the Children One of the most significant characteristics of the communes in general is the return to natural, almost primitive techniques of childbirth and child rearing. This commune was no different. Of the 14 females in the "immediate family," two were pregnant at the time of our observation. Both said that Manson was the father, although there was no way to verify the claim, as the sexual relations in the group were polygamous. It should be noted that Manson was held in such high regard by the girls that all of them wanted to carry his child. One of the pregnant girls gave birth to her son in the group's bus which the family used both as transportation and as a home prior to the ranch location. During the three months of residence in Haight-Ashbury, for example, the group (known then as "Charlie's Girls") used the bus as their primary home. To relax during childbirth the girl smoked marijuana. The group aided in the delivery; no physician or midwife was present. The above birth in the bus was a breech birth with not natal complications. The child was a fairly healthy youngster, although he did have a few allergies and a yeast infection he caught from his mother. The child did not see a physician until about four months after delivery, when he was treated at the Haight-Ashbury Clinic. In general, commune dwellers reject the concept of both pre-natal care and well-baby care, as well as birth certificates and immunizations. The mother and the group were against circumcision, but later forced by county health officials to have the operation performed. This occurred after the child was given to foster parents while the mother was being tried for a drug violation (possession of marijuana). It was at this time, also, that the child was given a birth certificate. This latter "injustice" was viewed by the group as the most harmful, as it was felt that this was an example of certification and harassment by society. To have the child numbered and registered with the state by means of a birth certificate is a practice that most commune dwellers reject. Sexual Practices and Child Rearing Since the group had extremely permissive sexual attitudes, the members felt no need for conventional marriage relationships which they considered psychologically destructive. The large number of divorces in the larger society and in their own family backgrounds helped them to rationalize or reinforce this attitude. The group functioned as "one husband and wife." They took communal responsibility for the children, although the mother cared for the infant during the early natal period with breast feeding. The entire group believed that they gave the child more attention and affection than did most families. The child was always the center of attraction and went everywhere with the group. The child was viewed as the one member of the group to most closely emulate and followe, as he alone was "untainted" by society. Charlie used the words of Jesus, "He who is like the small child shall reap the rewards of heaven," as a guide for the group's child rearing philosophy. On Becoming a Partner in the Group Marriage Commune Entry into this commune was relatively simple. There were no "entrance requirements" other than the willingness to give up one's social "hangups" and inhibition about sex, sexual partners, material possessions, and power over people. The latter was considered to be the primary motivation of the establishment or dominant culture. Sexual inhibitions were a major concern of the group. The sexual ethic the group attempted to adopt was at odds with the members' own middle-class backgrounds. Most of the group came from middle-class backgrounds and upon becoming a partner in the group marriage, many found it difficult to adjust to the group's attitude toward sex. Communal marriage was the modus operandi, and conventional one-to-one relationships were not sanctioned. The females in the group had as their major role the duty of gratifying the males. This was done by cooking for them and sleeping with them. Any member of the group could sleep with any other member as long as the partners did not get so involved with each other that they would not (or did not want to) sleep with anyone else. Manson set himself up as the "initiator of new females" into the commune. He would spend most of their first day making love to them, as he wanted to see if they were just ona "sex trip" (a term used by the group to label someone there only for sexual gratification), or whether they were seriously interested in joining the group. Manson would spend a great deal of time talking with them and finding out, as he put it, "where their heads were at." An unwillingness, for example, to engage in mutual oral-genital conact was cause for immediate expulsion, for Charlie felt that this was one of the most important indications as to whether or not the girl would be willing to give up her sexual inhibitions. Middle-class standards of sex behavior were rejected by the group. Most of the group had refuted the financial and materialistic orientation of their families with relative ease. The sexual orientation was more difficult. Homosexual activity, though not stigmatized, was minimal. Charlie felt that getting rid of sexual inhibitions would free people of most of their inhibitions and problems. Divorce From the Group Marriage Commune Should the group discover that a partner was not ridding himself of inhibitions fast enough, pressure would be applied. This pressure would take various forms. One of the most popular was the refusal of the other group members to have intercourse with that individual. Another approach would be the "long talk" method. This technique would involve two or three partners in the commune approaching the individual in question and asking "Why are you here? What do you want from us? If we asked you to hitch-hike to New York and stay there awhile, would you do it?" If the answer to the last question was yes, and the individual still did not go, he would usually be asked to leave and stay away until he went through sufficient "changes." People usually left "involuntarily" at the insistence of the family or group because the group felt that the individual was 1)just there for sexual reasons (on a sex trip), or 2)failed to conform to the standards of the group as established by Manson. Discussion and Summary A descriptive study such as this about a group marriage commune leaves a great many questions unanswered. It is apparent that many of the activities of the group would be labled deviant by America's dominant culture, but deviance itself is a culturally defined attitude and it is more meaningful to describe such behavior as either constructive or destructive. In health terms, a great deal of the behavior in group marriage commune is destructive. Communicable diseases ranging from upper respiratory problems to gonorrhea are rampant. Hepatitis and food poisoning also occur with great frequency. Drug abuse, however, does not seem to be a major health problem, although the use of illegal drugs by commune members seems to attract a great deal of attention in the popular press. Relative to psychosocial issues, analysis becomes much more difficult. Childbirth and communal child rearing seem to be handled fairly well as long as the group stays together, but substantial problems develop for both mother and child if they must leave the commune. Little is know of the long term consequences of such communal child rearing. The final and most interesting questions relate to why this alternative communal life style holds such an attraction for thousands of adolescents and young adults. Why, for example, were these young girls so attracted and captivated by a disturbed person such as Manson? What is happening within the framework of the dominant culture and its monogamous, nuckear family units, that so many youths must feel compelled not simply to rebel but totally reject traditional life styles? *This research was conducted 15 months prior to the highly publicized "Sharon Tate murder." The authors take no position or have no information relative to the involvement of this commune in this violent crime. **Assistant Clinical Professor of Toxicology, U.C. Medical Center, San Francisco and Medical Director, Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic. ***Research Associate, Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic." http://charliesfamily.tripod.com/journal.html (reply to this comment)

from myself Friday, October 07, 2005 - 03:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules...you're a bit pathetic. You're making a fool of yourself. What exactly is your point? Expect James to renounce his book? Some things people do are unreasonable. Do something inteligent. (reply to this comment)

From absolutspin Friday, October 07, 2005, 14:25 (Agree/Disagree?) hahaha...you're a douche...see i can throw out stupid insults too...I bet your a member.....and your right some things people do are unreasonable...like when David Berg told every one that it was ok to sexually abuse kid's...it was a "sexual revolution"....and "systemites" couldn't handle it because they didn't really love the "lord"...why don't you do somthing intelligent and have the balls to at least post without talking trash to a very intelligent woman...obviously got to you enough to make you come on here and make stupid comments...YAY...have a wonderful DAY! (reply to this comment)

From Nick Friday, October 07, 2005, 07:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Well I guess you have the right to your opinion but at least have the courage to use your name! Fing coward.(reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Friday, October 07, 2005, 05:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Not too sure where you got the idea from that she expects James to renounce his book. Doing a bit of projecting perhaps? In my experience, Jules is one to speak her mind and if she wanted him to do so, she would have told him flat out. Did you honestly think that by hurling insults at her you would help her to see your point? Also, you probably missed this because it's posted further down, but apparently the action she took in writing to Chancellor prompted him to apologize for his first letter to her. In it he says, "I have re-read what I said, and I said it very badly, and I am sorry."(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Friday, October 07, 2005, 15:09 (Agree/Disagree?) After participating in this original discussion back in August I decided to pick up his book at Amazon. I bristled at some of his comments in the original email to Jules and some of those in the "Cornerstone" articles. I realize that posting a full review or opinion of his book here might not be appropriate but I will say that I thought it was excellent and based on my experiences and observations I found it to be very, very accurate and a very good read. It could be that my opinion of the book benefited from my initial skepticism and low expectations but after I finished I thought, "There's no way in Hell that TF leadership would want their flock to get anywhere near this book. In some ways, to a Family member I think it would be even more faith-shaking than the full opinion of Justice Ward." I felt like buying extra copies to mail to anyone I ever lived with who was still in TF. Does anyone who was still in TF when the book was released (2000) know if they recommended it when it was published in the same way that they distributed "Sex, Slander and Salvation" to all Homes back in the mid-90's??? I would frankly be SHOCKED if they did but you never know. I was reminded of the way the the 2004 Bush/Cheney campaign recommended Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack" as "suggested reading" and at the same time Kerry/Edwards was recommending it. I couldn't understand how Bush was recommending it because it presented a very good case that he lied a number of times about when he was making decisions to invade Iraq, going to war as a last resort, etc. On the issue of an increased "credibility" of a current member's statements I'm not comfortable with that word because it implies general lying/dishonesty by us uh...er...NON-current members. However, I think the current members' statements quoted in the book are certainly more DAMAGING in the same way that a statement from Colin Powell in "Plan of Attack" is more damning than a statement from Howard Dean.(reply to this comment)

From Christy Saturday, April 22, 2006, 09:51 (Agree/Disagree?) I left right as the US media team was reading the first drafts of the book. They were very perplexed as to how many family members spilled all and how Chancellor managed to get them to confirm abuses by TF. I remember them actually feeling manipulated by Chancellor and like he had taken advantage of the access they had provided to him. They certainly did not encourage family members to check out the book.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Saturday, April 22, 2006, 21:11 (Agree/Disagree?) That's interesting and not all surprising. Thanks for taking the time to answer that old question. (reply to this comment)

From Lance Friday, October 07, 2005, 04:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Intelligent?... like posting half-hazard insults about people and subjects you'll never understand? (reply to this comment)

From :-) Friday, October 07, 2005, 07:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Is half-hazard when you share a parent with one of the Dukes of hazard?(reply to this comment)

From Lance Friday, October 07, 2005, 15:07 (Agree/Disagree?) No, half-hazard is when I'm half convinced that I should kick someones ass.(reply to this comment)

from absolutspin Thursday, October 06, 2005 - 09:11 (Agree/Disagree?) "experts" never suprise me...so people still in the group are more "credible" with thier stories because why? because they are still there? The fact that even after the "abuse" they've suffered...they choose to stick with the very enviroment they were abused in shows the mental state of these people...it's the same thing as being a battered spouse...it's being brainwashed...helpless and without control...they follow the direction they are pointed in...and how were the interviews between Mr. Chancellor and these people conducted...on a one on one baisis? Even if they were...i remember very vividly as a child that anytime we went to visit my grandmother or anyone who wasn't involved with the group...we were given a long "pep-talk" about what we could and couldn't say...and if "ex-memebers" stories grow over time...it's commonsense to look at the years of suppression and realize why...fragments and bits and pieces come back over time...after pushing these horrid memories away for so long...it's hard to remember them all at once...and if Mr. Chancellor has adults on the record confessing to thier crimes of abuse...did he involve the police? and if he didn't...then there's somthing really morally wrong with him...and his book wasn't to help these people...but to profit off thier stories.....his comment of " I will continue to tell the truth about what happened to some of the children, and what is not happening to them now. " blows my mind..the fact is it happend AT ALL...and it was wide spread and it was allowed and it did not stop in 86'...Jules...I have much respect for you for handling yourself in a professional manner...I'm much more easily pushed to calling him a Douche Bag... (reply to this comment)

From soutenu pour etre libre Saturday, July 29, 2006, 00:15 (Agree/Disagree?) There are a lot of cases where doctors and specialists interview people without involving the law. For example, there are so many documentaries that show people doing drugs or prostitution and they do not report to authorities for reasons that they are there for the purpose of analysis. How else can one get an honest story? What would be the point of lawyers and Psychiatrists if there was a chance that every person was turned over to law inforcement when a confession was made? I am glad that there is someone who can give an objective opinion. I am going to find that book because for once, I would like to hear a complete outsiders opinion. I love all my fellow ex-members but I have to say that we are so blindsided by our emotions and the fact that we have been blatantly shutdown; its possible we could not be looking at things in the most constructive way possible. I see how he is trying to bring credibility to the situation BY involving those who still find something to believe in, in the FM. (reply to this comment)

From smashingrrl Sunday, July 30, 2006, 00:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I can't speak for international law. I can only speak for American law. Doctor-patient, attorney-client, and any other form of privilege disappears when harm to a child is believed to be imminent. The same confidentiality only exists for crimes or deeds already committed. If one were to tell his shrink that he planned to hurt himself or others, that counsellor is required by law to report it. If a psychiatrist believes a minor is in danger; he's required to report it. Attorney client privilege is a little more protected. It basically goes like this: You can tell your lawyer what you've done. If you tell him what you're going to do; he's required to inform the authorities. If you do tell you're attorney what you've done; he cannot lie for you or knowingly allow you to lie under oath. As for journalism; the laws are being challenged daily. It really depends on who wants to know and if a judge believes the benifit of a journalist's testimony outweighs confidentiality. We're supposed to have a free press. We won't for very long if things continue down their current path.(reply to this comment)

From Saturday, July 29, 2006, 19:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Is there such a thing as "professor of religion-interviewee privilege"? That's a new one.(reply to this comment)

From evanman Thursday, October 06, 2005, 16:17 (Agree/Disagree?) If people who are still in the "Family" are more credible, then I guess Karen Zerby must be believed when she states how wonderful Daddy Derg was? As far as I am aware--Zerby is the guiltiest of all--guess until she's brought to book nothing can be done(If Mr. Chancellor is to be believed). Why is Mr. Chancellor trying to provide a balanced view of something that is so twisted that there can be no balance? Evil is Evil! TF is rotten to the core! It contaminates and corrupts all that it touches! (reply to this comment)

from Benz Friday, August 26, 2005 - 23:43 (Agree/Disagree?) CJ Jung has said that “Beyond every fanaticism lurks a secret doubt”. I thought about that statement and have to admit that my stance toward the “membership” issue has bordered on fanatical. Not that I think that there is anything wrong with being emotive on a subject which is emotive for me. Plenty of people are emotive at plenty times, including demonstrators, activists and protestors, which doesn’t make them less intelligent for it. In fact it is easy to see that “emotive” behaviour is far rather likely a general reaction to oppression or prejudice, “real” or perceived. In this case I feel oppressed by the use of the word “member”, which I feel infers my willing and chosen membership to a group I disagree with to the core. You may consider this feeling “real” or imagined. I realise that no “axiom definitive” is going to change the way that other people will view me if I tell them I was a “member of The Family”. - I know from experience that telling someone “I was a member of TF” automatically in most cases creates the conception that it was my choice. Firstly, I don’t like being in a screaming match with immature name-calling, which is what I have stooped to, I know. Regardless of whether this is an emotive topic and I feel oppressed by the term “member”, I realise the more I yell something the less likely someone else is going to listen, and or come to see things from my point of view. As with the comment from Jung, I realise that because I don’t want to acknowledge my parents had the right to make me a member without my consent, I am fanatically failing to acknowledge that in some contexts I would be a “member”, regardless of whether my choice was given (as has been mentioned by Craven). On the other hand what is important to me is my sense of entitlement in this matter. This says that no parent has a right to force such a membership on their child. A parent can send their child to school and choose the school and so on (including the boy scouts or what have you), but should not be entitled to force their children to be members without their consent. Another point is the sensitivity surrounding terms which although may be clinically accurate are not terms we use, in that they would be harsh and represent an incorrect label. An example of this would be if a 12 year old girl was forced to be a prostitute, and was later rescued . By definition she was a prostitute, and is an “ex-prostitute”. - I personally (and anyone is free to hold their own opinion) think it would be harsh and inappropriate to call such a girl an “ex-prostitute”, when in truth she was only an abused, possibly enslaved child. - Although as I said you may technically call her a “prostitute”, I believe it would actually be incorrect usage due to its entire inappropriateness. Finally, I want to say I am actually pleased that Craven has countered what were my emotive statements, I believe it forced (is forcing) me to see things from just one angle. - Freedom of speech is such that “disagreement should not disturb me so”, as Craven said. Craven, I think you are brave (despite having called you a coward several times) and eloquent and I appreciate the way you accept “reality” front on. I just hope you can start to understand those of us who are dreamers, who want to change the negative affects of being bound to a troubled past which was beyond our control by believing in our entitlements as they should have been. (reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Monday, August 29, 2005, 22:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Benz, This was quite a surprise to me, not just the different tone with which you address me, which I appreciate, but the marked improvement in the arguments you have forwarded for your position. The example of "prostitute" was one of the more powerful ones I have seen in debate (and I am not new to debate) even though I see subtle but significant differences between the terms (in short I find them dissimilar in pejoration within a larger quorum). But even more importantly, acknowledging the linguistic issue left a square focus on the emotional issues you raised. Empiricism and rationalism are often seen as mutually exclusive with acknowledging the reality of emotions. And I don't wish to fall in that pit-trap myself. Emotion is a very real human trait, and I wish to acknowledge more plainly that the emotive responses to "member" have good reason if it is understood to have the context you ascribe to it. As we are both well aware, I differ in opinion as to whether or not the term carries that context, but regardless of the linguistic pedantry I would do well to acknowledge the emotional "facts on the ground" more prominently. Thank you very much for this post, it evoked greater introspection into this issue than I would have otherwise entertained.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Tuesday, August 30, 2005, 15:56 (Agree/Disagree?) So...Craven, are you 100% Vulcan or only 50%? ;) Glad to see you guys are cool. You both made some great points.(reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Saturday, August 27, 2005, 11:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Craven's the man. I haven't read the debate, just busy trying to maintain food clothing and shelter, and some sleep inbetween. Certainly not a coward. But that's the deal about being grown up. It's not necessary that we agree on all things. I hate the term member whenever it is applied personally, I think I have good reason to. However, my opinion cannot denigrate someone else's, especially when it's just a label/semantics type of thing. Chill (reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 23:46 (Agree/Disagree?) *more than just one angle(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 27, 2005, 03:12 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you 100% (well, apart from the emotional bit since I'm not an emotional person).(reply to this comment)

from Wolf Friday, August 26, 2005 - 08:35 (Agree/Disagree?) As usual, I'm going to examine things from the other side of the coin, and probably be booed for it as well. I understand why Mr. Chancellor's letter upset Julia, but the only part of his letter that angers me is his suspicion of the veracity of Julia's statements. In some ways, this site's participants proved Chancellor's point by some of the posts in this thread. For example, if you re-read his letter you'll notice that he didn't insinuate that current members are always more credible than ex-members. He spoke of credibility only in the context of accusations, which is perfectly understandable, if you take a moment to see things from an outsider's point of view. Lauren did a good job of explaining why current members cannot even credibly evaluate the Family's negative traits -- but think about it from an outsider's point of view: People don't leave a group because of it's positive qualities. They leave because they have some issues with it, usually serious ones. So it makes sense that former members are more likely to exaggerate the negative qualities of a group than current members. Let's address his claim that this site's participants exaggerate: judging by the comments in this thread, he may be right. I don't think anybody exaggerates their personal stories, but participants do commonly cite an event that happened once or twice as if it were common policy in TF. For example, we know that one or two "experts" who wrote favorably about TF got kickbacks for it, but this doesn’t mean it's one of TF's general policies or something that happens all the time. Lastly, I agree that the ex-member community needs some form of leadership if we are to obtain any form of justice. I'm not willing to exercise any sort of leadership, and I don't know if anybody else is, but I think this is exactly why our chances of getting justice anytime soon are approximately zero. This is the only area where I feel some sort of leadership would be beneficial. If someone were willing to take this role, they could facilitate the pursuit of justice by doing the following: Collect contributions for the effort Administer available funds Collect the information needed to build a case Represent ex-members in legal proceedings This list is probably far from comprehensive. I would fully support such a person, as long as their leadership role is limited only to the pursuit of justice. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Friday, August 26, 2005, 13:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Boo Wolf!--Just kidding. :) Personally I do use the term ex-member occasionally because saying “persons born and/or raised in The Family, formerly The Children of God”, is just too damn long. My opinion is that the issues here are context and extrapolation. There is a direct line of reasoning that can be drawn from the fairly innocuous term “ex-member”, as it relates to people who once were part of cultic groups, to the accusation that people who speak out about abuses in religious organizations “amplify, exaggerate, and fabricate”. Of course, it does not necessarily follow that if one accepts one term, one must accept all the others, but there is a definite progression among apologetics through “ex-member”, “defector”, “detractor”, “apostate” and “liar”. Basically, the argument put forth by cult apologists for the unreliability of ex-member accounts as I understand it is this, (I am paraphrasing here): People join groups frequently against the wishes of their family and their prior social circles and often face opposition when doing so. When disciples of such groups leave, coming up with tales of atrocities and brainwashing shifts the blame for their initial joining a fringe movement, as well as their staying in for many years, from themselves to the group. Any abhorrent behaviour on the part of the apostate while they were members can then be easily explained by “the cult made me do it”. The accounts of abuse recounted by former members are actually an attempt to ingratiate themselves with main-stream society again and change their status from deserter to victim. These stories are eagerly bought by the media because they are sensational and anti-cult activists because they abhor religious freedom. Defectors, Ordinary Leavetakers and Apostates: A Quantitative Study of Former Members of New Acropolis in France http://www.cesnur.org/testi/Acropolis.htm The Reliability of Apostate Testimony About New Religious Movements http://www.neuereligion.de/ENG/Kliever/start.htm The obvious misconception in regards to this line of thinking, as it relates to us, is that we never said “I do” to the Family. Even if the claim of fabrications were true (and I have not personally seen any actual evidence to support this, just a lot of speculation and bias by apologetics), there was no decision to join the Family and commit our lives on the part of those born into it. It was purely an accident of happenstance that we were there at all. There is just no logic behind the notion that we would invent and exaggerate to justify our involvement with The Family. I believe that much of the methodology used so far by experts on both sides of the pro/anti cult debate is fatally flawed when it comes to children born and raised in such movements. The language, terminology and models that have been widely used for many years are just not accurate, plain and simple. Closed and isolated societies are not organizations for those born into them, but their native culture. I know I harp on this a lot and it may seem like a minor detail, but I believe that the glaring lack of research, support, recovery models and even justice for those born and raised in cultic groups is due to the widespread lack of understanding of this issue. I wrote my own argument for the inaccuracy of the apostate/ex-member term as it applies to us a few years ago here: http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=9&ID=806 I have personally met and talked to many of the researchers and experts on both sides of the pro/anti cult movement and things are starting to change. One of the primary reasons for this, in my opinion, is that there are a number of up and coming qualified, credentialed experts who are people who were born and raised in cultic groups themselves. Another reason may be that there are also a number of experts from other disciplines (social work, medicine, etc.) who are becoming involved in research on this issue, rather than just the sociologists and psychologists who have dominated the field of studies in NRMs in the past. (reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Saturday, August 27, 2005, 15:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Many thanks for posting the above article links. There can be little doubt that people born into a cultic group have a profoundly different perspective than those who join as adults. Perhaps the contribution of social work to understanding issues of acculturation comes in part from its historic roots in serving refugees, immigrants, and other displaced or vulnerable populations, such as children. In all fairness to sociologists and psychologists, some of the academics who dominate the field of NRM studies are very small fish in their own professional lakes. They compensate for their lack of stature by laying claim to a very small pond called NRM studies where they can appear to be bigger fish than they really are. For the most part, the rigor of their work would not hold up to a peer review in professional sociology and psychology research journals. The evidence to support the cult apologists' assumptions about the unreliability of ex-member accounts isn't particularly strong. If I were to randomly sample 100 exmember FGAs, do you suppose all 100 exmembers would describe themselves as victims or talk about their membership as brainwashing? Introvigne's (1997) study suggests there is a rather large "silent majority" of "ordinary leave takers" who are neither anti-cult apostates or detractors. Is it fair to assume that the accounts of ordinary leave takers are unreliable "because they abhor religious freedom"? Introvigne uses his data to ask questions and draw conclusions about former members who are anti-cult--he's not very interested in asking questions about the ordinary leave takers. The kinds of questions someone asks, versus those he overlooks and ignores are an example of study bias. Given the fact that ordinary leave takers made up the majority of his sample, Introvigne might easily have compared them to a sample of active group members to determine how different their views were on a number of topics and events. That would be a quick and easy way to assess the "reliability" of exmember accounts. Perhaps he did this in a later study. I doubt it, given the political pressure in the NRM frog pond against asking the kinds of research questions that could challenge cherished assumptions. The other study you cited looks at a sample of apostates. So where are the studies of ordinary leave takers? While we're at it, where are the studies of people born into the group who leave? (Rhetorical question: They're posted on the SPF website!) There's a very big hole in the NRM research to date, and until that hole gets filled, a neophyte like Chancellor has little evidence to support his position that the oral histories of born-into leavers are less reliable than those of born-into adherants. I'm not going to get into now, but there are some much larger theoretical problems associated with social constructivism and symbolic interactionism that cult apologists like Introvigne are ignoring altogether. This is why they've failed to develop models that are pertinent to born-into leavers versus born-into adherants. This is really not a minor detail, Jules. It's such a big hole in the NRM field of study, that in order to see it, the "experts" will need to start swimming in a bigger lake.(reply to this comment)

From An embarassment of Rich Friday, August 26, 2005, 14:16 (Agree/Disagree?) The utterly hypocritical thing on the part of Chancellor is that people who "apostasized" to join a cult are the ones he somehow believes he can trust and bases on their "testimony" the conclusion of how bad it was in the world they left, hence he says -- emphasis added : "I had a few “ah – ha” moments along my journey with the Family. One of those concerned the plight of the young people, particularly those who were born early in the movement’s history. Some of their lives were filled with hardship, abuse, and sadness. But as I came to know the disciples, I began to realize that many of the first generation of disciples were people who had been OTCASTS, ABUSED, DROPOUTS, DRUG USERS, and had lived LIVES OF GREAT SADNESS. And I began to ask myself, “what might the lives of their children been like had they not joined the Family?” I think that is the kind of question, the kind of analysis, that people like Stephen Kent and those in the secular anti-cult movement cannot allow themselves." (at http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?633) But I think Chancellor has something very interesting he should learn about the Catholic Church, who according to him puts its kids at greater danger of child abuse than The Family -- THOSE STORIES OF ABUSE IN THE CATHOLOC CHURCH ARE UNRELIABLE -- OR AS YOU SAY, EXAGGERATED, FABRICATED --TOO! Just ask Lonnie D. Kliever, PhD and Professor of Religious Studies at SMU in Dalls. He knows ALL about it(check out his site at the second link Jules posted above): "I have noticed that X members (refered to as apostates) of a religion seem to create a lot of sensationalism in the media and are often listed as reliable sources when in fact they are not and are often paid to say certain things to stir up violence and hatred. For example I have noticed this with former members of the Church of Scientology, the Catholic Church, Judaism, Christianity and other groups refered to as cults where incredible importance is put on the former Scientologist, the disaffected monk, the Jewish person who has turned to another faith and on and on."(reply to this comment)

from Benz Friday, August 26, 2005 - 03:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Raven Craven, I’ve been at work all day working on multi-million dollar contracts and return to find you still babbling on about how the word “member” automatically intonates that one has no choice in whatever given context. - You are wrong with your one sided definition, you know it, and I know it. - The truth is it the word “member” in itself neither intonates choice or a lack of choice but is neutral. Whether “choice” is applicable depends on the given context. Let me explain yet again with an example: “He is a member” - Does not indicate whether or not any choice is involved. “He is a member of the French race” - Does not indicate whether any choice is involved. “He is a member of the Democrat party” - Does indicate that choice was involved. So, why do some associations of “member” imply that choice is in fact a “pre-requisite” of membership. - Why of course, by their association. In this case (the Democrat case), because in most civilised countries one has the right to choose which political party they are or are not a member of. In other words, it would be wrong for you to say I was a member of a party I did not choose. Even a person in China for example with a one-party system, I am sure would disagree he was a “member” or even an ex-member, if he was a dissident who had come to a greater understanding of what should be his political rights. In the case of the “French race”, there is something quantifiable here in that this is a case where one has a historical heritage stretching back beyond just ones immediate parents. For example a person with Indonesian parents could hardly consider themselves a member of the “French race” although they may be a French citizen nonetheless. - Please confirm here that I am indeed right so I can take you into step two of this grade one argument. I think what is happening here is that you and I have a completely different understanding of the concept of membership. So much so that any other simple concept or word, for example “table” is probably seen by both you and I as completely different things altogether. When I think of table I think of a piece of furniture with any number of legs (probably more than two) which one may use for dining, writing, sitting at with friends etc, but it is something which I choose to sit at or not to sit at. I am not forced to sit at the table. You on the other hand seem to see “table” as something you are already sitting at, having no choice in the matter. - You are a “member” of said “table” whether you like it or not “it’s just life”. This goes further. My idea of my rights is that they existed regardless of whether my parents honoured those rights or not. You on the other hand seem to treat “rights” as something that is only there if you were honoured enough to have parents who allowed you to have them. So with me, once I have become aware or my rights, and the rights which should be given to all children have gained a certain sense of entitlement to those rights (an entitlement you would do well to cultivate). You see my parents did not and do not have a right to make me a member of a cult without my consent. Let me be very clear on this because it is true. It was their decision to become “members”, not mine. You have argued that we were born into the cult and have to accept that we are then inevitable members”. - Is that so? There are certain types of “membership” which one can not help but be born into. For example, a member of the human race (as Nancy has quite correctly pointed out). On the other hand I am not born into the Democrat party simply because my parents were Democrats. - And why is this (show of hands) - yes you Raven Craven, “Because you have the right to chose your political association”. “Very good Raven Craven“, the teacher said, then rubbed little Raven on the head, “Very, Very good”, “You deserve a little sparkle on your forehead”. So Ravey boy, what makes you think that because my parents were members by choice they can legally say that I am “born into membership”. If Timothy McVeigh had started his own special club and said that all his kids were “automatic members” would his kids have to live the rest of their lives calling themselves “ex-McVeigh Family members”? - “Hmmmmmmm, come on Raven, you‘re a smart boy”, the teacher said (trying not to show that he thought that Raven was just a bit behind in his class), Raven, ate some more of his pencil before finally replying “I know, I know”, yes the teacher said with a sweet smile, “Go on Raven Craven”, “no, mam, um, sir, they wouldn’t have to consider themselves members”. “And why is that”, the teacher asked with excitement that little Raven actually answered something correctly, “ummmm, (eating his pencil some more), because McVeigh had no legal right to enforce such a membership on a child, and because such a “membership” only existed in Mr McVeigh’s fantasy?”. “Very good little Raven (thinks, will have to change that “F” to a “D-”), says the teacher. Now Raven, a bit more “lead to my bullet“, another “nail in your coffin”, so to speak (please don’t take me literally, the pocket oxford dictionary is not the be-all and end all of the English language, that you like to think it is, and I‘d hate that someone with you level of knowledge might sent me to Guantanamon for having mentioned the word “bullet“). Those who joined and formed “The Family”, say they have the occupation of “missionary”, do they not? They have also said that this is definitive of a member. “The Family”, and more specifically “Berg” has said on numerous occasions that it is a pre-requisite that one is a teacher of the gospel, a missionary, “winning the world for Jesus” in order to be a member of “The Family“. In fact he has gone so far as to ex-communicate those who weren’t “giving their all to Christ” as “sold out Revolutionary MEMBERS”, has he not? So, I ask, does any parent have the legal right to force their children to accept an occupation which they alone have chosen for their child? (Please Raven, don’t think of Third World legislation, maybe ask someone who knows “Western” laws, mmmkay?). The answer is “no” (the teacher got tired of waiting for little Raven to answer), “a parent does not have the legal right to force their child to accept an occupation or profession which they have chosen for their child, try as they may“, the teacher interjected with a hint of finality. Another point in case, does a parent have the right to make a child a member of an “Adults Only” club? - The answer Ravey Boy, is no. If legislation in a country forbids minors in participating in certain “Adults Only” venues then regardless of how much the paedophilic parents of a child try to make her (or him) a legal member of an “Adults only” club, they have no rights to do so. - This is indisputable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - When I was a child, to be a “member” you had to accept “The Family’s” doctrines, otherwise you were not a “member”. In other words, I could not possibly legally adhere to “The Family’s” doctrines as a minor, so you can not consider me, by legal definition, a “member”. (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Friday, August 26, 2005, 13:23 (Agree/Disagree?) "multi-million dollar contracts" Based on the length of your posts I've got to assume that you bill by the word. Do they award bonuses for insults at your firm? My thoughts: http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Friday=givafck.wav As roughneck would say: "I'm plumb out...I haven't any more to give".(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Friday, August 26, 2005, 23:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Egad, I've been quoted twice in as many days... ;) If I may add my two itty bitty bits to this charming thread, I think y'all are missing the central point, namely the "ex" part of the "label" in question. Following is a (very) short and incomprehensive list of other things I can happily claim to be "ex-": witnesser (let's win the world for... the rent) good sample (let your light so shine, amen?) inspirationalist (let it shiiiiiiine...... {shudder...}) clown (cue the "still an assclown" remarks) JJT slave (32 encrusted toilets down, 55 to go! Hallelujah!) Family Pubs reader (baaaaarf...) et fucking cetera. None of these define who I am now either. To paraphrase the tired old joke: I ain't an ex-member, I'se a refugee! ;) Anyone who is so small minded as to so pejoratively label you isn't worth your time anyway. Seriously, people, take a deep breath and repeat after me: I am not JoeH, I do not enjoy lengthy English-language-related flamewars... :) I do have one question for the neologistically-inclined lexicographers though: by your definition, are current family youth "members"? The brain-damaged baboons at mycontusion.com seem to think they are. (If you had asked me at oh, say, 12, I would have said I considered myself a member... if that means anything. The fact that I would also have characterized myself as miserable around that time is beside the point.) I guess that's one more for the "ex-" list. brain-damaged baboon (I hope, anyway) I think the term "ex-SG" seems to be short and inoffensive (not too etymologically & emotionally loaded either) enough for our purposes. Thoughts anyone?(reply to this comment)

From Benz Saturday, August 27, 2005, 19:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Another idea is to coin our own term, and not as a blanket label of a supposed demograph but rather a term to describe a concept of political thought or social activism. - In this case the concept of activism against one who would seek to force a cult membership on a minor. A similar idea which comes to mind is the brilliant term/ book title by Naomi Klein, No Logo , which she describes in her book: “The title No Logo is not meant to be read as a literal slogan (as in No more Logos!), or a post-logo logo (there is already a No Logo clothing line, or so I’m told). Rather, it is an attempt to capture an anticorporate attitude I see emerging among many young activists. This book is hinged on a simple hypothesis: that as more people discover the brand-name secrets of the global logo web, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement, a vast wave of opposition squarely targeting transnational corporations, particularly those with very high name-brand recognition.” - Transpose the economic jargon with cult-particular terms and you get my general drift. Being terribly unoriginal I would suggest a term like “no member” to “capture“ such a concept, though there would be better slogans to be thought of I’m sure. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 27, 2005, 07:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Sigh. This is Nancy admiring the words of roughneck.(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 06:47 (Agree/Disagree?) "I’ve been at work all day working on multi-million dollar contracts and return to find you still babbling on about how the word “member” automatically intonates that one has no choice in whatever given context." I have never once said anything of the sort. I have not once maintained that "member automatically intonates that one has no choice in whatever given context". And as a personal recommendation, I suggest that reading incomprehension of this caliber indicates that working on "multi-million dollar contracts" is probably not the safest activity you could currently engage in. ;-) Furthermore, given that your arguments here are predicated on this notion, I will merely point out that you have created a straw man to argue against (look up this fallacy) that is a caricature of the position I have maintained.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 10:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry Craven, I mentioned something trivial about the fact that while my day encompasses deliberating over contracts worth millions of dollars, I am yet still somehow linked to the stupidest of discussions with an absolute block headed egotistical moron who insists I am a member of something I never chose to be a member of. Craven, you have not countered my above explanation in the slightest, you have completely ignored it. - I choose to decide that you have no competent comeback for the simple explanation and are simply trying to side step it with an argument about "million dollar contracts", which have no real relation to what I was saying but was just a casual introduction you apparently take some kind of weird offence to. I will therefore waste no more time on your dumb ass (call this descriptive of you "emotive" I don't care, you simply are a hard headed dumbass, your actions portray this quite distinctly). Finally, I am not a "member" or "ex-member" of "The Family" because of reasons I have already explained (right to chose my own occupation and right as a minor not to be a member of "adult only activities", which constituted membership of a given group). - Now If you can't understand that I only hope you can come to understand better the sense of your own entitlements. - In truth I am not angry with you, I feel sorry for the pathetic hole you continue to put yourself into. I am not a member and never was, because freedom of association to a group is my individual entitlement, my right. You on the other hand can choose to be whatever you imagine (or someone else imagines) you are. - Goodbye, you and me are not "members" or "ex-members" of the same history. I have rejected that which was not legally imposed upon me, you have not. Anyone who accepts your notion of "ex-membership" is likewise in absolute disagreement with a freedom which I hold as essential to my personal rights.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, August 26, 2005, 05:52 (Agree/Disagree?) "I’ve been at work all day working on multi-million dollar contracts..." I've been at work all day working on multi-million pound contracts - one of which is in excess of a billion pounds - what does that have to do with the discussion at hand?(reply to this comment)

From roughneck Saturday, August 27, 2005, 08:57 (Agree/Disagree?) "...one of which is in excess of a billion pounds." This "billion" of which you speak, is it 10^9 or 10^12?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 27, 2005, 11:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Clever spot, rough! The Brits have by-&-large adopted the US 'billion' of late, so I was refering to 10^9.(reply to this comment)

from Give Peace a Chance Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 15:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I was looking at the heated exchange below regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of the term "member" to describe those of us who were born or raised in the cult. It looks like the billious exchanges focus on the rejection or acceptance of the word "member," but maybe the disagreement is less fundamental than it seems. Craven for example seems to be OK with the term because he accepts a concept of involuntary membership which others are arguing does not exist. I wouldn't mind being referred to as an involuntary member. But then "involuntary ex-member" would be misleading. Maybe its "ex-involuntary member"? (yikes, clumsy) As someone who did not make a decision as an adult to be a member in the cult where I was born (which I guess some SGs may have), I am not fond of being called a member or ex-member, and maybe that is because of my sense that so may laypersons do not get how different it is to be born in a cult than to sign up, and I would hate to be confused with one of the latter. Maybe my emotional investment in not being mistaken for a voluntary member is due to the extreme child sex abuse and other things I was subjected to, so my idea of voluntary cult members is very negative and I bristle at being mistaken for one (go on, call me emotional, sensitive, whatever). (reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 00:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Sensitive is not an inherently bad thing. The degree of sensitivity I objected to is when people start attacking others about their choice of terminology. This has less to do with sensitivity than simple rudeness. I understand the distinction you make, and the associated feelings. My qualm is with the vulgar attacks being made toward people who have not chosen an identical manner of expression.(reply to this comment)

From mia1 Thursday, August 25, 2005, 20:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I rejoined, so that would make me an exmember right? I mean does that make me any less then you since I voluntarily re-joined the family at the age of 15? I mean, we were all made to toe the line as family members, we all prayed(did lip service), did dishes, begged..opps I mean went wittnessing etc. What difference does it make, once upon a time you sang songs to jesus and "grandpa" along with the rest of us. Forgive me if I'm being callous here it's not my intention. I believe that the family is about deceit, regardless if you voluntarily joined or if you were forced into it by birth, we all were victims at one time or another, and I wouldn't go labling all "ex-members" just because you want to feel special.(reply to this comment)

From Give Peace a Chance Thursday, August 25, 2005, 21:01 (Agree/Disagree?) No, I absolutely do not think that makes you any less than me -- not that it would matter if I was dumb enough to think it did. You rejoined as a minor, at the tender age of 15, after a whole/most of a childhood in the Family (no?). I would guess you had some loved ones who were in the Family when you went back? Most people in the west still get to be "kids" that tender age, being housed and fed by parents while they get an education. And I don't think you're being callous. I am referring more to the My Conclusion types who are maybe 30 and insisting that they are thrilled to be there of their own free will as a conscious choice of "career." The ones who would blast me if I said "oh, you poor things have not made any such choice after you became adults, you are not members"? Whole different kettle of fish -- in MY opinion.(reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Saturday, August 27, 2005, 14:21 (Agree/Disagree?) My overall philosophy at this point is chill or be chilled. I simply won't talk to a news outlet that is going to label me an "ex-member" because I never freely elected membership in this bogus nonsense mongering group of criminal ass-clowns. But other people feel differently about such things. I guess we'll see how these things go. Take it easy, Don(reply to this comment)

From mia1 Friday, August 26, 2005, 19:37 (Agree/Disagree?) yeah, those my conclusions types diss us a lot considering we hardly disscuss them at all. I was on their site the other night and there were a whole bunch of nasty comments about us exers, or whatever you want to call it. Sorry if my tone was offensive, I was feeling bitchy... :)(reply to this comment)

from Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 18:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Does anybody know who the "Noah" is that JC refers to in the Cornerstone article as one of his primary informants? (reply to this comment)

from Craven de Kere Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - 00:37 (Agree/Disagree?) He did say that some ex-members have prevaricated in their testimony but that's simply fact, whether it rubs the ex-member community the wrong way or not. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why many here are so worked up over that email. In what was posted there's nothing I find objectionable at all, much less anything worthy of republishing someone's email. P.S. Where did James call Julia a liar? (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, August 25, 2005, 20:05 (Agree/Disagree?) "I can't, for the life of me, figure out why many here are so worked up." "I find nothing objectionable at all." You seem to have a hard time relating or understanding these issues. Try looking past your own preconceived notions and you may see what others are saying. "much less anything worthy of republishing" That's more of your opinion and you judging other people, in this case Jules. If you can't understand what others are saying, then maybe you should back-off your judgement of them. Just a thought. (reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Thursday, August 25, 2005, 23:38 (Agree/Disagree?) "Judging other people"...? You project an awful lot. I read Jules response and realized that this has a lot more involved than the text in the email. I understand this and left it be. I had no "judgement" (not that I think there's anything wrong with that, though it's ironic how much judging about judging you are willing to exhibit).(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 26, 2005, 06:46 (Agree/Disagree?) "You project an awful lot." - more opinion, more value judgement which amounts to nothing. Of course there's more involved in the situation. As you could plainly read, this was one in several emails back and forth. Besides, most people in the survivor community know that being told they're exaggerating about the abuse they suffered revictimizes them all over again. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 04:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Mate, the only reason you fail to judge what is wrong for yourself is because of your inherent cowardice which you can't help but exhibit for us all to see. (reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 06:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Alternately, I may simply have not found anything to be wrong. To be sure, this doesn't play too well into a simplistic insult, but you can probably still construe this negatively if you put your mind to it. :-D(reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 10:30 (Agree/Disagree?) :-) yes, of course sweetheart, whatever you say. After all, you're such a "logical male", aren't you?(reply to this comment)

From Jules Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 17:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Chancellor sent me an apology yesterday for his insensitive remarks to me: "I want to say that I am sorry to you. I did not mean to imply that you were not being truthful - only that in such a show as Dateline, things can very easily be edited and done in such a way as not to come out as we had hoped. I have re-read what I said, and I said it very badly, and I am sorry." I do appreciate his acknowledgement and willingness to apologise. The email I published upset me a great deal, so much so that I took several months away from this web site, email and even the phone. I discussed it with my therapist and she agreed that he was extremely unprofessional and suggested that I complain to the dean of his university. While I felt extremely hurt by what he said, I did think that it was more likely not an intentional or deliberate attack, but more just bias and insensitivity on his part, and I did not want to take it that far. The initial interview I did with Dateline was one of the most difficult things I have ever done. At the time MovingOn had just launched and felt I was completely alone in speaking out. The hotel suite it was filmed in was across the hall from a room where I had been raped and assualted a couple years prior and I was shaking the entire time I was in the room. There were five men, no women, in there with me, and to have to relive some of the worst moments of my life in those surroundings was very difficult. I went home afterwards and cried for hours in the shower. I felt violated and ashamed. To have my name and face on national television, talking about some of the most shameful experiences of my life, the things that I want most of all to forget, let alone the fact that I was in the sex trade, is not easy. I worried about my colleagues and friends seeing this. If you don't understand why Chancellors remarks upset me, perhaps you could put your name and face out there on television and then have some "expert" ask you if you were being truthful and then let me know how that feels. Over the years I have taken a lot of crap from all sides. Lots of people disagree with me about many different things and are quite vocal in their criticism and that's okay. While it's not fun to be on the receiving end, most of the time it is understandable and I don't take it personally. What got to me about Chancellor's email is that he is currently the primary "expert" on the group to the media. He goes out of his way to be sensitive to members of the Family, but could be so callous to victims. It really bothered me in a way that accusuations from group members, my family or even the occasional flame war here does not. I am under no obligation to Chancellor and I have every right to publish his email to me. He is a public figure and has been very vocal about his "expertise" regarding abuse of children in the Family. As Lauren articulated so well, I too am just tired of the bullshit. I am a survivor of abuse and exploitation that no one should ever have to experience and I am tired of being put in the position of having to be "fair" and understanding towards those who did these things to me in the first place or those who deny my own story of my own life. I have every right to my own anger and outrage. I am living with the scars of abuse every single day and the recovery process has been painful, difficult and slow. (reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 20:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I see... Stay well Jules.(reply to this comment)

From GoldenMic Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 19:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I am glad that you got that apology. When he sent you an e-mail alledging that "ex-members" engage in instances of "extreme exaggeration or outright falsehood", he was calling you and your friends liars, and he went way over the line. I also agree that he had/has no right to expect his words to be confidential, writing as an expert on TF in communication with the creator of Moving On. Frankly, his bland little comments of assurance, "I want you to know that... I will testify to what I know... the truth about what happened to some of the children, and what is not happening to them now" was, in itself, a horrifying marginalization of the experiences of many, many participants here who describe cases of abuse that have occurred within the last few years. Frankly, in both his letter and his book, Mr. Chancellor's lifeless and grayed-out style do not hide the irresponsible nature of his reliance only upon current Family members for information, this by a person purporting to speak from the objectivity of sociological scholarship, and his naive acceptance of their words and actions demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of the diabolical and completely-controlled management of every cult member's thoughts and actions. I am glad that you did not imply (via silence) that his perspective was legitimate or uncontested, and I join with others here in respecting your courage at speaking out against the injustice and innaccuracy of his statements. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 18:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules, there just not words to describe my respect for you, your strength and courage. So many of us take for granted what you have done, the paths you forged. We've always known this site in recent history. I think sometimes we forget the all the sacrificies you've made to bring it about.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 17:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said. I am always humbled by your courage and strength. In my posts I gave Jim the benefit of the doubt regarding his motives and his character but if anything I wrote was hurtful to you in any way, I am truly sorry.(reply to this comment)

From Peeved Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 15:40 (Agree/Disagree?) God damn it, WE ARE NOT EX-MEMBERS!!!(reply to this comment)

From sarafina Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 16:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I think your getting carried away with the whole irate “I’m not an ex-member” The problem is until we find a united word to use that everyone understands (and agrees on) when referring to ourselves, those of us who have left the group will still be called “ex-members”. That is the only word at this time that everyone understands who were talking about. Now I know that you were never a “member” and you know that I was never a “member” even Craven knows but we haven’t found a unified word that we all agree on to call or use to describe those of us who have left. So if one of us happens to say “ex-members” they are only trying to use the most referred to word (for lack of a better one) one that is easy to understand. Now I’m am for changing the way that we refer to each other so why not vote on one term and stick to it. But until we do, let’s not jump on everyone till we have a solution. If he had used the word” ex-cult baby” instead would that have been better? (reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 19:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I personally have no plans to subscribe to any of this groupthink and adopt a palatable euphemism. I was a member, now I am not. I am now an ex-member. This was not by choice but I'm comfortable enough in my own skin to not need linguistic gymnastics to describe this. If others are sensitive to the point that they do not appreciate being called "ex-member" they can feel free to call themselves what they wish, as will I. And if they bristle at such an innocuous term I will simply chalk it up to inordinate sensitivity and move on. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, August 25, 2005, 12:20 (Agree/Disagree?) How is it "sensitive" to reject a label thrust upon oneself which is inaccurate? Aren't you further labeling people who deny the title you take willingly? "Inordinate sensitivity" is your label and not a flattering one. "Member" and "ex-member" is your label and not a flattering one. "Innocuous" is your labal and not an accurate one in most people's opinion. It is not linguistic gymnastics. It is your labeling. Those of us who where subject to the abuse of The Family as children and ran away as children are survivors, not members. How could we be members as minors? This is a legal concept. Further, we're talking about membership in an organization not an ethnic group. I may be a member of a group of North American caucasian femal professionals, but I am not a member of the American bar Association unless I join. Further, it's impossible to join and thereby became a member of any organization for which one never voluntarily joined and for which one disagrees with every tenant of the organization. It's exactly the same for Patty Hurst. She was not a member of the SA. She is the survivor of kidnapping. Her kidnapping didn't make her a member of the SA. Why is this so hard to understand?(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Thursday, August 25, 2005, 14:36 (Agree/Disagree?) "How is it "sensitive" to reject a label thrust upon oneself which is inaccurate? " Nancy, what you do here is a fallacy called a "loaded question". The issue at hand is precisely whether or not the "label" is accurate, and your question attempts to assume that you are right on this and take me to task. You are not right, the notion that it is an "inaccurate" term is simple bullshit. I don't mind if people redifine terms for their emotional needs, but they should have the decency to not expect the world to redefine language to suit them. In the English language, there is NOT a pre-requisite of willing consent to the quality of being a member. "Aren't you further labeling people who deny the title you take willingly?" What on earth are you talking about? I can't be faulted if people decide to reinterpret the words I use and apply their emotionally charged pseudo-definition to it. I mean them no ill-will but I will not bow to their emotional tantrums either. ""Member" and "ex-member" is your label and not a flattering one." Bull and bull. Those are not terms of my creation and the unflattering meaning is one that you are projecting onto the term of your own volition. ""Innocuous" is your labal and not an accurate one in most people's opinion." This is a fallacy called argumentum ad populum, or in English an "appeal to popularity". Furthermore it is an inaccurate on in the first place (an odd false premise to a subsequently fallacious bit of logic). Whether or not the majority here (something you have not established) dislikes the term has no bearing on its accuracy. To use a converse example that should be more palatable in this "us vs. them" mentality here: a majority of the members of The Family may well dislike the term "cult" but it is still an accurate term for thier group. "Those of us who where subject to the abuse of The Family as children and ran away as children are survivors, not members." These terms are not mutually exclusive. "How could we be members as minors? This is a legal concept." This statement is absurd. I have a deeper understanding of American and International law than many lawyers, and this seems to be yet another case. This has not a whit to do with law Nancy. And I would be more than happy to continue this line of discussion to attempt to divest you of this absurd notion. "Member" is a word with vast application, and does not invariably hold legal meaning. You can't demonstrate that this is a "legal" issue and I challenge you to attempt to do so. "Further, we're talking about membership in an organization not an ethnic group." So? There is no linguistic rule that delienates appropriate use of the word "member" based on this criterion you have come up with. "I may be a member of a group of North American caucasian femal professionals, but I am not a member of the American bar Association unless I join." This is a really odd attempt at an example, as it shares no logical relationship with this case. You can't be born into the American Bar Association Nancy. Are you trying to make the case that we were not born into a demented cult? That would be quite an attempt at denial. "Further, it's impossible to join and thereby became a member of any organization for which one never voluntarily joined and for which one disagrees with every tenant of the organization." False. This is a simply false logical axiom you have proposed. You can't substantiate the "impossibility" you seek to establish as truth. "Why is this so hard to understand?" Here's another fallacious argument. I understand you prefectly, what I do not do is agree with you. This is because your position is predicated on illogic and falshood (i.e. the definition of "member"). I understand your emotions about this, I simply disagree with your wild conclusions. You rail at me for "thrusting labels" on you, for my innocuous (in intent if not effect) use of a pedestrian term that has become emotionally charged for you. Yet you don't think twice about attacking others and spewing vulgarities at them for their use of the term. Nancy, this is absurd hypocrisy. I mean no one insult by my use of the term "member", yet you find it perfectly appropriate to redefine the term, take insult where there was none and attack others. I find it distasteful and see it as using others as an emotional lightning rod. Your anger has less to do with me and what I say than what happened to you in your life. Direct your anger responsibly and stop lashing out at others who have the misfortune of using a language appropriately.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 04:40 (Agree/Disagree?) So you "have a deeper understanding of American and International law than many lawyers", yet don't seem to put a decent paragraph together. I mean just look at the way you arrange your argument (and don't try to blame it on the movingon format, because everyone else seems to be coping). Any half-educated Judge would though your nonsense diatribes out on account of pure eye-sore. (reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 06:56 (Agree/Disagree?) You are grasping at straws Benz, and trying to find some alternate criterion like your personal paragraph values as a means through which to indict my postings only indicates that addressing the arguments themselves is problematic for you.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 10:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Ahhhhh, no. Craven, your paragraph structure is indeed quite elementary. I don't need to "grasp at straws" to point that out. - Go back to school grammar teacher.....(reply to this comment)

From Jarhead Thursday, August 25, 2005, 17:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Craven, it appears to me that "member" is a trigger word for several people here. Here's the simple logic I use to guide me in a situation like this: 1) My intent is irrelavant. It doesn't matter that I didn't mean to give offense if someone took offense at my use of a word. 2) If I understand Nancy's "emotions about all this," then I have no need to argue with her about the rightness or wrongness of those feelings or the conclusions she reaches as a result. If I don't really understand the intelligence of her emotions, then I will continue to intellectualize the conflict in a fruitless debate. 3) If I am secure within myself about my own truth regarding a contested concept, it is not necessary to agree with Nancy's feelings or conclusions. I don't even have to really, truly understand her feelings & conclusions. 4) However, Nancy has challenged me to exercise a behavioral response based on emotional intelligence, which is not about being right or wrong. It's about finding the win/win position. This requires that I use something called empathy. Practically speaking, it means being very careful how I use the word "member" when engaging in discourse with someone who feels the way Nancy does. Other places, other people, other context, I'll use that word as I see fit. Bottom line is this: Nancy made a point of asking me to respect her feelings about using this word in reference to her, and I just do it because respect for boundaries is a good social skill.(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 00:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Jarhead (it's odd using a pejorative to address you ;-), I do think intent matters a great deal, and I plainly had no intent to insult those who took insult with my use of the term "member". Nevertheless I have tempered my use of it and have not used it with her, her attacks on me stem from my use of it in passing and my defense of it's appropriateness. I am frequently referred to as an ex-SGA, however I was never an adult in the cult. I left as a child. I would not think it reasonable if I were to start trying to construe use of the term "ex-SGA" as a perjorative label (even if I was never an adult and that the term might somehow imply that my duration in the cult involved voluntary adult membership or somesuch). I guess we may just disagree as to what a reasonable boundary is. ErikMagnusLehnsher gets to the core of the problem which is that expression here would be greatly mitigated if unreasonable demands are made in regard to the word choice of others. I avoid calling people vulgar names, and don't go out of my way to irk others here but if there's a limit to which I can bend my lexicon to accomodate others. Given that those in question are vulgarly attacking others it's a hard case to make that their social boundaries are being infringed on. What I object to is when the pejoration of this term is taken so far as to attempt to bludgeon others into acquiecense. (reply to this comment)

From jarhead Friday, August 26, 2005, 09:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Craven, I agree with EML that you are giving very reasoned responses. I've also experienced the frustration you might be feeling where "the pejoration of this term is taken so far as to attempt to bludgeon others in acquiecense." You're essentially pushing back against the controlling tactics of the PC police. The "unreasonable demands" of political correctness can be used very effectively to control which rhetorical arguments are permissable and which "too offensive" to be countenanced. The issues you've raised about the use of words in the development of discourse structures are fascinating, but how is that relevant to discussion of Chancellor's email to Jules? I state that intent or motive is not relavent with regard to giving offense for two reasons. Let's say my intent is to show you God's love, and I'm feeling so squishy good about my pure motives and high-minded spirituality that I decide to share it with a child by fondling her. The harm done to the child is not affected by my intent one iota. I can later say, "I was ignorant about the damage I might have caused, and I certainly didn't mean to hurt the child--my intentions were noble and pure." Does that change the injury done to the child? Ignorance is no excuse. Also, it is very difficult to be completely honest about intent & motivation. Sometimes we think our intentions are innocent, when in fact, they are hidden from our awareness by processes of self-deception. "Jarhead" is not a perjorative term to me. In the Deep South, it was used to reference black males and mules, because both were considered difficult as to train. I use it to mean I'm not easily led or whipped into line. As far as insults go, there's a complete discussion of the "-head" insults (search "blockhead") at http://www.nakokulma.net/keskustelu/index.php?PHPSESSID=12a849393c97b02d7eca501d17906cc1&topic=386.msg12415 A sense of irony goes a long way when passions become so much inflamed. (reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Monday, August 29, 2005, 22:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Jarhead, Your diplomatic "off topic" rebuke was well received here, and I will mitigate my response on intent/effect so as to avoid even further derailment of the topic. My qualm with your example of intent and effect lies in that it consists of a moral absolutism that is extraneously defined as "wrong". In this case no such axiom exists and at dispute is whether or not said wrongness can be asserted itself. You are, of course, correct that intent does not preclude said wrong but this too has no bearing on whether it is. Ultimately, we are unlikely to establish a quorum and settle this definitional dispute and I am thusly glad to see that we have the good sense to move beyond this logomachy. Should you wish to wax philosophical with me on the conflict of intent and effect I would be happy to join you in a more appropriate forum.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Thursday, August 25, 2005, 19:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Jarhead, To be honest, I think Craven makes a pretty good case. Clearly people can choose how they want to describe themselves but I don't think casual usage of the word "member" should be grounds for a tar and feathering here. This is a wide-open forum. If Craven were to write: "Nancy, you ARE a former member and I will address you as such!" then that would be grounds for criticism. That's not the case. I think a trigger word black list could quickly grow exponentially and make communicating here very difficult and unnecessarily verbose. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, August 25, 2005, 16:15 (Agree/Disagree?) "fallacy", "loaded question", "argumentum ad populum", "the unflattering meaning", "fallacious bit of logic", "another fallacious argument", "illogic and falshood", "pedestrian term", "absurd hypocrisy", "distasteful", "fallacy called argumentum ad populum", "using a language appropriately", "Bull and bull" - again, more of your labels which amount to nothing but your opinion. Let's count how many times Craven used the word fallacy or a derivative thereof. Your use of an adjective doesn't equal a noun. In fact, you can throw around all the adjectives you like and your point it does not prove. "In the English language, there is NOT a pre-requisite of willing consent to the quality of being a member." Oh, so the English language is now the arbitor of pre-requisites. Pity politics, international relations, higher education and the law didn't get that memo because they could have reduced the entire contents of the world's libraries to just one book, the dictionary. Again, member of what? Member of a cult, which is an organization. One can be a member of the human race without consent and against ones will, but we're not talking about a group that is comprised of physical characteristics. We're talking about a religious cult which is comprised of members that adhere to the same religious doctrine, belief and practice. Therefore, if one does not adhere to that religious doctrine, belief and practice and openly attempts to leave such an organization, then they are not a member regardless of their geography. You know what I find distasteful? Sanctimonious, pompous asses who attempt to thrust their opinions and labels onto the rest of us. I had enough of that in the cult for a lifetime. I’ve been released on time served from those types who tell others who and what they are and how and where to live their lives. As Jules and roughneck have said, my bullshit detector is finely tuned to detect those cult types who haven't fully discarded the operating method and way of communicating with everyone else as if they were a junior officer who must accept everything on face value. By all means Craven, you are welcome to be a religious cult ex-member. You may call yourself whatever you like. You may call yourself Baltizar Warlord of the Fallacious and live happily in county ex-cultie from now until the end of time. But kindly keep your labels, opinions and adjectives to yourself and off my life. Now with regard to your claim, “I have a deeper understanding of American and International law than many lawyers, and this seems to be yet another case.” That just tickles me. It sounds a whole lot like, “I know my rights! I know the law! What I say, I saw, I saw!” I, on the other hand, do not purport to know more about the law “than many lawyers.” There are a lot of very brilliant minds out there you are attempting to compare yourself to and unless you’re a Good Will Hunting with the mind that absorbs the legal knowledge enough to replace the formal education, then I can safely call bullshit on you. In law school, it was easy to recognize the person at the bottom of the class. He was the one always boasting that he was the smartest person in the room or claiming to “have a deeper understanding of …law than [everyone else].” I, however, am a good enough lawyer to know there are a lot of better lawyers than me. Yet, even the most mindless of them knows that a minor has no standing to contract whether orally or traditionally. A minor has no standing in court. A minor has no capacity to consent. A minor has no capacity to even join the army without parental consent. So, therefore, it is really pointless to argue that a minor, against their will, was a member of a religious cult. Unless of course you judge the world by just one book, the dictionary, and do not recognize any other authority, legal or otherwise. Direct my anger responsibly, Craven? I suppose you determine what is responsible as well. Or does the dictionary determine that too? Honey, the last day someone got to tell me where to direct my anger and when and how to be angry was when I left the cult, the one for which you claim prior membership. Unfortunately, that day was 15 years prior to your post above. So, you missed the statute of limitations for telling me what to do with my anger by a decade and a half. Sorry! But, you did give me a smile with that " I know the law better than you remark."(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 00:17 (Agree/Disagree?) "....again, more of your labels which amount to nothing but your opinion." This whole "labelling" thing is becoming a label in and of itself. Thing is, given that I see nothing inherently objectionable about "labelling" I really don't mind. And for the record, those terms adequately described the logical fallacies I had attempted to draw your attention to. That you simply object to them as "labels" indicates to me that this isn't a discussion on a level at which it was useful. Nevertheless, I will try to keep this discussion on those grounds. "Let's count how many times Craven used the word fallacy or a derivative thereof." Given that I have not once herein incorrectly labelled your logical fallacies I don't think this is in your best interests. It would merely serve as a figure to represent the number of your fallacies I have pointed out. "Your use of an adjective doesn't equal a noun. In fact, you can throw around all the adjectives you like and your point it does not prove." I am wholly unfamiliar with the "noun" method of argument and will thusly take your word for it. I'm more of a logic kind of guy. ;-) "Oh, so the English language is now the arbitor of pre-requisites." Nancy, did you have something else in mind for a semantic discussion on the appropriateness of an English term? "Therefore, if one does not adhere to that religious doctrine, belief and practice and openly attempts to leave such an organization, then they are not a member regardless of their geography." For the fallacy count I'll mention that this is fast approaching an argumentum ad nauseum. No matter how many times you repeat this it will not magically become true. "You know what I find distasteful? Sanctimonious, pompous asses who attempt to thrust their opinions and labels onto the rest of us." Nancy, let's try to keep this within the realm of reality. I used "ex-member" in passing and directed at no particular individual. Since then you have tried to construe this as forcing labels on you and spewed invective and vulgarity. Quite frankly, given your willingness to spew such terms as asshole and the like I am disinclined to take your advice on labels. I have not once called you any such things and have only marvelled at the length you can go on like this without seeing the hypocrisy yourself. "But kindly keep your labels, opinions and adjectives to yourself and off my life" I will do nothing of the sort Nancy. You will simply have to be a responsible adult and get over it. You have no qualms with giving others a dose of your own opinion and vulgar adjectives and I would expect nothing less. I don't mind that you disagree with me, and don't mind if you vociferate to that end. Similarly, I categorically reject this demand. "There are a lot of very brilliant minds out there you are attempting to compare yourself to and unless you’re a Good Will Hunting with the mind that absorbs the legal knowledge enough to replace the formal education, then I can safely call bullshit on you." Feel free to attempt to do so. You can start by providing evidence to support your claim that I disputed. I have already welcomed discussion on that subject. I have already said I that you can not do so. So bluster aside, if you wish to make a case here it's already waiting for you. ;-) "Yet, even the most mindless of them knows that a minor has no standing to contract whether orally or traditionally. " And a similarly mindless fellow can see that such a contract has nothing whatsoever to do with being born in a cult. You may not remember but at birth no such contractual obligations are made. It's a really haphazard and random thing this birth, you know. I had no say at all in mine. Such is life. It may not be fair but it's legal! :-D "A minor has no standing in court. A minor has no capacity to consent." Furthermore a minor has no say in whether or not he is born in a cult, thereby rendering his capacity to consent wholly irrelevant. "A minor has no capacity to even join the army without parental consent." Nor to join a cult in most cases. But in case you haven't noticed this has nothing to do with those born in a cult. Those born in a cult have no say over the matter. Such is life, it's not fair, just legal. "So, therefore, it is really pointless to argue that a minor, against their will, was a member of a religious cult. " This is a hell of a non sequitur* this has no bearing at all as to the validity of the use of "member". *another for the fallacy count. "Unless of course you judge the world by just one book, the dictionary, and do not recognize any other authority, legal or otherwise." Again, law has not a whit to support the position you advocate. And nothing you have said even begins to address this outlandish notion. "Direct my anger responsibly, Craven? I suppose you determine what is responsible as well. Or does the dictionary determine that too?" I can only opine on this, it's not an appeal to any authority. I think your anger here is misdirected, this is my opinion. I will explain, briefly, why I think so: I happened to use "ex-member" in passing, and surprisingly found that someone took objection to this. I read on to find you spewing vulgarites at someone for disagreeing. I have tried to refrain from calling you names (I have no such qualm with indictments on the things you say) but I will say that I found you to be quite rude. For this reason I have taken up this argument. I understand the distinction you are trying to make, and have no qualm with it outside of a lexicographical setting. You are highlighting that you did not willingly choose to be a member and I understand that what that means to you, it is a significant distinction within the composition of the cult's members. I don't mind if you express yourself this way. However jumping all over someone who uses it in a way inconsistent with the manner you have adopted is taking it a bit far. The source of your anger is not generated by someone's mere use of the word "member". It is due to painful experiences you had in a cult. To use others here as an emotional dumping ground is to project said anger onto the wrong targets in my opinion. Nobody is trying to "label" you as having had voluntarily joined a cult here. All that happened is that the mere word was used and it's appropriateness defended amid your hail of insults. And yes, it is my opinion that you thusly direct your anger irresponsibly and are behaving quite rudely. That being said, I have no personal animosity toward you, and wish you well. If nothing of substance follows this post I will make it my last on this subject to you, and you can feel free to use some pejoratives about me in my absence.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 26, 2005, 07:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Bottom line - It is one thing to call yourself something. It is another to say everyone else is. Doing so is labeling them with your value judgements. With this happens to me, I don't take kindly to it especially when it groups a sex cult and me into the same category group. To that I have every right, even under American law which you claim to know so well, to react however I see fit. I can be as angry as I please cause this ain't your mamma's cult. That is what we call freedom of speach. Period. "Irresponsible" "behaving quite rudely" - whatever you want to sling from your closet of value judgements today still only amounts to your opinion. And since I am not in a cult, you can carry on all you please and I can still tell you to fuck off, too. You ain't my daddy Craven. No cultie, ex or otherwise, is going to tell me what to say or how to "act". If you are peddling a load of crap here and purporting to sell it to me, then be prepared for my response. And you can take your condoscending "you're behaving rudely" and do shove it in "unchristian" fashion, as someone often says. Oh, and as far as telling me what the "source of [my] anger" is, well this isn't devotions dear. You can do the same as described above with that opinion, too. (reply to this comment)

From boots Saturday, July 29, 2006, 01:02 (Agree/Disagree?) I hope you all are putting your grammatically correct minds to work for financial gain. I have to say this is like reading a disclaimer. I am completely in awe and you should pat yourself on the back for your bright minds that I hope aren't just sitting in a dirty apartment thinking up witty intercourse. cheers.(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 07:10 (Agree/Disagree?) "Bottom line - It is one thing to call yourself something. It is another to say everyone else is. Doing so is labeling them with your value judgements." Nancy, as I have said many times, I do not use "member" with "value judgement". YOU do. Nor did I ever refer to you as "member", I merely used it in passing at which point you came loaded for bear. "To that I have every right, even under American law which you claim to know so well, to react however I see fit." This is another legally false claim. No, you do NOT have a right under American law to react however you see fit.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 26, 2005, 07:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh yeah, I forgot about that pesky statute which governs emotions. So, I guess you better sue me. "Your honor, Nancy, reacted in ANGER to my claims! I want punitive damages." Yeah, go ahead with that one Craven. You might have to "educate" the judge with your superior knowledge of American law because I'm not sure you could find a judge familiar with that statute. And what happened to you leaving? Further, you most certainly did say we were members. Read your posts again. You said some yattering about "you were a member, blah, blah, blah..."(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 08:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Emotion and reacting in anger do not cover the full scope of reactions you may possibly see fit. But I do agree that they are legal, and think that suing would be pretty silly (especially given that it doesn't perturb me much). As to leaving this discussion as is, I think it's a good advice. There's likely little profit to be had by the continuance of our exchange. Let me conclude our discussion by saying that I harbor no personal animosity toward you, regardless of whether the converse is true.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 27, 2005, 07:19 (Agree/Disagree?) I've got nothing but love for your Craven. We just don't agree on this one is all.(reply to this comment)

From Kiss it Friday, August 26, 2005, 10:29 (Agree/Disagree?) You said: "Let me conclude our discussion by saying that I harbor no personal animosity toward you, regardless of whether the converse is true." I'm sorry, did you think that was under the radar? It's just stupid man! Whatever the case, this reminds me of something I read somewhere: Arguing online is like competing in the special olimpics, even if you win you're still a retard. (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Thursday, August 25, 2005, 19:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I hate to say it but if we do have a triggle word black-list then "Honey" should definitely be on it. "Honey, did you pray before your burnt the eggs?" "Honey, we you murmuring while you were cleaning the bathroom?" "Honey, I'm going to have to give you a double-demerit for justifying yourself." I hate that damn word and it always pissed me off, especially when it was being used by some "adult" who was only a year or two older than me.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, August 25, 2005, 19:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you hate it as much as some reject "member"? Is it as offensive as "fallacy", "loaded question", "argumentum ad populum", "the unflattering meaning", "fallacious bit of logic", "another fallacious argument", "illogic and falshood", "pedestrian term", "absurd hypocrisy", "distasteful", "fallacy called argumentum ad populum", "using a language appropriately", "Bull and bull"?(reply to this comment)

From Dudey Thursday, August 25, 2005, 20:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Are any of those as offensive as the quotes that can be taken from you, Nancy, from this page alone? "Fuck you", "You - I not equal!", "fuck you and your lame attempts", "Put it on your fucking resume", "you annoy the hell out of me", "shut up!", "Sanctimonious, pompous asses", "bullshit detector", "You may call yourself Baltizar Warlord of the Fallacious and live happily in county ex-cultie from now until the end of time", "call bullshit on you" ...and so on and on.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 26, 2005, 06:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I never claimed to be handling anyone with kidgloves. I say it like it is and don't pull punches. I don't choose my words in these types of discussions. I was simply pointing out the distinction between what what Eric posted and what Craven was raving about.(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 06:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Then why do you insist that others use kidgloves with you? That their mere use of the word "member" is so untoward as to ellicit your vulgar distain? This is hypocritical.(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 00:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Just a quick pedantic note: I personally don't mind having "bullshit" called out. I took issue with attacks on people but I encourage others to dispute the content of my postings and don't mind if they are handled roughly. I sincerely hope that my every bullshit is called out, for my own good.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Thursday, August 25, 2005, 19:34 (Agree/Disagree?) *trigger not triggle.(reply to this comment)

From Patty Hearst Thursday, August 25, 2005, 14:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I may be inordinately sensitive, but the organization that I was not a member of is the SLA, or Symbionese Liberation Army. I disagreed not only with every tenant of that organization, but with all of its landlords as well, not to mention its tenets. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, August 25, 2005, 15:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, thanks! I knew that post needed some googling and spell checking.(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Thursday, August 25, 2005, 14:38 (Agree/Disagree?) If this is your way of dealing then so be it. I wish you all the best and can only hope you will have the good sense not to attack others and spew vulgarities at them for not using the language the way you have, for very personal reasons, chosen to.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Thursday, August 25, 2005, 02:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Define paradoxical: Calling outrage against a groupthink term, groupthink....(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Thursday, August 25, 2005, 13:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Nope, I am speaking of the desire to have linguistic redefinition and to impose it on others in a group. If there is a perfectly innocuous term that I happen to dislike, I will still understand that it's unreasonable to try to bludgeon others into ceasing to use it.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 04:53 (Agree/Disagree?) It is unreasonable to accept that law abiding citizens abide by non-law abiding terms(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 07:01 (Agree/Disagree?) You can no more establish that "member" is an illegal term than you can an inappropriate one Benz. The whole legal angle to this discussion is almost as risible as my willingness to see its continuance this far.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 10:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Is it illegal to call me a member of the communist party if I have not chosen such a membership? Is it incorrect to call myself a member of the Royal family if I do not have such a legal claim? (reply to this comment)

From is it legal? Friday, August 26, 2005, 11:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Is it accurate to call Craven an 'uncivilised moron' with no legal foundation to your claim?(reply to this comment)

From Peeved Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 16:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I know, I find myself using it too, and at least it's better than "apostates" or "detractors". BTW, what ever happened to "BACKSLIDERS"? It sounded so much badder. (sigh)(reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 16:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't mind being called a detractor. I am proud to be a detractor as far as The F-ing Evil Weirdness is concerned. But I ain't no "apostate. " If you ask me, to be an "apostle" of TFEW is an insultable title!(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 17:03 (Agree/Disagree?) <<< ANother De-Tractor here, almost every aspect about The Cult's Lifestyle was strange, and I am proud to have left all of that behind and I wish everyone will soon Detract their mentality and change their ways. I personally prefer to be called ex-2nd gen. Or AKA ex-2nd generation offspring of the Infamous cult of the children of God or The Family. (reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 00:50 (Agree/Disagree?) I think "ex-second generation" may well be the best alternate term I have heard. Not all ex-members are "detractors", but the term you prefer delineates between voluntary membership and involuntary membership and serves as a more specific subset of "ex-member" quite nicely.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 10:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Who cares about "the best alternate term you've heard". - You are no judge. - You are nothing but a benchmark of idiocy (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Saturday, August 27, 2005, 09:23 (Agree/Disagree?) As someone who is obviously the kind of grammatically meticulous human being who cares deeply about such linguistic shibboleths, you should have put a question mark after "heard", and a period after "idiocy". Seriously, this is the lamest grammar-related flamefest... evaar... (reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 07:31 (Agree/Disagree?) You say "it's simply fact" that some ex-members "have prevaricated in their testimony." Are you referring to people who lied to protect the cult while they were still in the cult but are now ex-members? Or are you talking about ex-members who "prevaricated" while out? Care to elaborate? I hope I don't need to remind people, or tell them in the case of those who have never spoken out in the media, that reporter's screw-ups do not count as ex-member prevarication, whatever the cult says about it. I dare say most of those of us who have spoken out have had the infuriating experience of being called liars by loved ones in the cult for things that either the reporters screwed up in our interviews, or as has also happened to me, gotten wrong while apparently getting their information from some third party and never even having interviewed me. This was done in my case by a major media entity. In the first scenario they mess things up but in the second scenario they compound the screw-ups. As an FYI, most reporters don't give you drafts to sign off on or let you retain editorial control. Many of them don't even do this for celebrities who have clout, much less for someone they probably see as having no worldly importance or future interest. For some of these people, our stories are so alien they just report the impression they took away from the interviews and if you wanted to clarify the things they conflated in their reporting (such as keeping FFing distinct from the child sex abuse), they would likely scratch their heads wondering what the big deal is, because it all strikes them as being just a morass of oddity that is totally foreign. By prevaricating, do you mean to "speak or act evasivley or misleadingly" or do you mean "quibble; equivocate"? "Prevaricate" is an interesting choice of your words, especially since it was not Chancellor's.(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 19:49 (Agree/Disagree?) "Are you referring to people who lied to protect the cult while they were still in the cult but are now ex-members?" Not really, I am simply referring to people who have stated falsehoods about their experience in The Family, whether positive or negative. "By prevaricating, do you mean to "speak or act evasivley or misleadingly" or do you mean "quibble; equivocate"? "Prevaricate" is an interesting choice of your words, especially since it was not Chancellor's." This level of linguistic nuance is irrelevant to what I was saying, to put it really bluntly, yes there have been liars in the ex-member community. This is neither surprising nor should it reflect negatively on those who speak truth.(reply to this comment)

From No Kidding! Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 20:32 (Agree/Disagree?) In a way Craven's right, many of us ex-SGA's have lied about abuse in the Family. Many of us (me included) even wrote affidavits, LEGAL documents declaring to a court of law that we had never been abused. We said that we had been raised in good enviroments. We wrote that we had received a good education. We wrote that we had never been sexually abused as children, and worse, we wrote that to our knowledge none of our friends had either.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 04:38 (Agree/Disagree?) All other "ex-members", along with Craven please stand up. If you are an "ex-member" then I assume one of two things about you: a) Either you chose to be a member at some point, and are happy that it was indeed your own informed choice, or, b) You don't care that the choice to be a member was made by someone else without your agreement - I suppose self-representation/ self determinism isn't everyone’s idea of freedom, so how much can I buy your vote for?(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 19:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Then you assume incorrectly. There is no pre-requisite of willful consent to the meaning of being a "member". Your assumption is predicated on a false axiom, with the redefinition of a word at its core.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Thursday, August 25, 2005, 01:58 (Agree/Disagree?) "There is no pre-requisite of wilful consent to the meaning of being a member". I disagree, there is EVERY "pre-requisite of wilful consent" in the given context. - Its called the law and an individual's legal rights. I am not a member of any group, party or otherwise without my given consent. To have a membership imposed on someone is immoral, unethical, illegal and tyrannical. You are using the word out of proper context and your cowardly comments reek of the third-world “groupthink” mentality we grew up with. You must be an automatic member of the feeble neeble school of bad grammar, because I just imagined you were. I will not acknowledge a membership which goes against my rights to chose my membership for myself. - Such imposed membership is illegal. If you want to validate TF's fantastical claims that they can make members out of thin air and happy thoughts, you can only do that for your spineless self. - I personally don't pay attention when someone dreams that I'm a member and calls me one. - Perhaps you do. - I hope you get a chance to join the real world where there are rules which keep us safe and protect our rights, including that to chose our own memberships. If someone forces you (ie gives you no choice) to be a member, that does not make you any sort of member. - And shame on you for saying so. Call me "inordinately sensitive" or whathaveyou I don't care. - You're nothing but a coward who doesn't appreciate the importance of holding on to and defending your rights. - I just hope no-one else is stupid enough to believe you. If I have no right to chose I am a prisoner, as are you.(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Thursday, August 25, 2005, 14:14 (Agree/Disagree?) "I disagree, there is EVERY "pre-requisite of wilful consent" in the given context. - Its called the law and an individual's legal rights." Nonsense, this is quite a stretch to redefine a term to your liking. You have every right to do so, as do others to reject your deviant lexicon. "I am not a member of any group, party or otherwise without my given consent." I disagree, as this statement is predicated on willfull misinterpretation of the meaning of the term "member". "To have a membership imposed on someone is immoral, unethical, illegal and tyrannical." Nowhere have I disagreed with this notion, however it does not have anything to do with the appropriateness of the term "member" in this discussion. I am speaking about linguistics, not whether or not it was right for the cult to impose their belief system on their scions. "You are using the word out of proper context and your cowardly comments reek of the third-world “groupthink” mentality we grew up with." This is only true if the "context" is your willful redefinition of a term. I also find it ironic that you do not hesitate to bandy about real pejoratives while bristling at imagined ones. "You must be an automatic member of the feeble neeble school of bad grammar, because I just imagined you were." This explains a lot, "it is because I imagined it is"... "I will not acknowledge a membership which goes against my rights to chose my membership for myself. " Such is your prerogative, as it is that of others to disregard your desire to take it as far as linguistic redefinition. "Such imposed membership is illegal." You are now demonstrating legal ignorance in addition to that of basic language use. This is patently false and absurd. "If you want to validate TF's fantastical claims that they can make members out of thin air and happy thoughts, you can only do that for your spineless self. - I personally don't pay attention when someone dreams that I'm a member and calls me one." I beg to differ, you seem to pay quite close attention, going so far as to break out insults in response to the imagined insults you have received. "I hope you get a chance to join the real world where there are rules which keep us safe and protect our rights, including that to chose our own memberships. " Pray tell, what rules are these? They certainly are not products of grammar or law. To my mind they seem to be a confusion of some basic human rights due to illogic, but if you can come up with a coherent criterion for your fit I'd be happy to listen to it. "If someone forces you (ie gives you no choice) to be a member, that does not make you any sort of member." This is simply untrue. If someone forces you to be a member, then it may be unethical, but that doesn't mean you are not a member. This is quite basic logic we are dealing with here... "And shame on you for saying so." I don't feel any shame for using the language the way it is appropriate and rejecting illogical linguistic crusades based on imagined insult. "Call me "inordinately sensitive" or whathaveyou I don't care. - You're nothing but a coward who doesn't appreciate the importance of holding on to and defending your rights. - I just hope no-one else is stupid enough to believe you." I don't really have any desire to call you any names. I have no ill-will toward you and simply disagree with the risible notion that "membership" is invariably voluntary, this is a simple falsehood. That you feel the need to take this as an insult is an issue of your own and if calling me a coward helps you then so be it. As you will...(reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 05:07 (Agree/Disagree?) As explained above, (in my comment to this article dated 26/08/2005), I dispute that any minor can be called a member of an organisation whose definition of membership would make it illegal for a minor to participate in said membership. - I refer on the grounds that membership of “The Family” infers an "occupation", which no person has a right to impose on a child and to sexual practices which no civilised person has a right to impose as “membership” on a child. Go away Craven, you uncivilised moron!!!(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 07:03 (Agree/Disagree?) "Go away Craven, you uncivilised moron!!!" Control yourself Benz. Disagreement shouldn't disturb you so.(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 06:53 (Agree/Disagree?) "I dispute that any minor can be called a member of an organisation whose definition of membership would make it illegal for a minor to participate in said membership." This makes precious little sense. To wit, an illegal terrorist organization must have no members given that it would be illegal to participate.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Friday, August 26, 2005, 10:51 (Agree/Disagree?) What??????? If a minor cannot comply with the requirements of membership on legal grounds (ie: ff'ing/ free-sex), then legally THERE IS NO WAY HE/ SHE CAN BE A MEMBER. - This is NOT a difficult concept to understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (reply to this comment)

From ............ Friday, August 26, 2005, 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) But if a minor isn't old enough to be able to give consent, wouldn’t it be up to the parents? If a parent inscribes a child to be a member of the boy scouts without the child's consent, doesn't it still mean that the child is a member of the boy scouts? I think maybe we’re getting a little too carried away with this whole “are we or are we not ex-members” deal. Whether we were in TF by our own consent or not is not relative, the main thing we should focus on is, we are NO longer in the cult and we left by our own free will. We now hate the cult, and do not want to be associated with it for the rest of our lives. We never wanted to be in the cult, we were never “dedicated” to the sick beliefs, and we sure as hell do not need to lie to protect anyone in it. We will continue to tell the truth, and no matter what you “culties” want to call us, we continue to try to get justice. (reply to this comment)

From what is a member? Friday, August 26, 2005, 11:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, why don't you explain the requirements for membership as you define them. Maybe the problem is just a definition of membership requirements.(reply to this comment)

From Friday, August 26, 2005, 08:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe he is referring to the injustice of imputing such supposed membership to a minor, as applied to a flesh and blood world (as opposed to a realm of syllogisms where the interaction of words is taken to reflect the only valid limits). Plenty of things are done by many people for a long time until someone comes along and says -- and acts on -- "I have a dream." Adults who joined cults have for a long time been protesting the free choice they made to join and remain. Then some of them leave and highlight the ways in which they were pressured to do various things in a cult. I happen to think it would be a positive development for the future of children in high-demand organizations if, despite this state of affairs that can only confuse laypeople, an understanding became more widespread of how the nature of a child's being in a cult differs, especially until that child reaches a point where it can be self-determining, from that of an adult joiner. Many times a distinction in terminology supports the public's awareness that a distinction exists. Maybe the discussion would be more interesting if it were in terms of "would it be desirable to convey to laypersons who have no clue about who is and isn't brainwashed or abused in a cult (after all they still make up the vast majority of society and will be needed in some capacity for improvements to occur) the fundamental difference in experience between joiners and children of joiners, or is it completely irrelevant whether people impute to children whatever they impute to adult joiners of a repulsive cult, even if an understanding of such a distinction led society to be more willing to assist those children and look out for their safety than they will be to intervene to offer to adult joiners help that they protest they don't want."(reply to this comment)

From Craven de Kere Friday, August 26, 2005, 08:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think that's what is being argued so much as a far more reasonable revision of the argument. To date I have no qualm with trying to highlight the distinction of having had the misfortune of being born into such a cult, my qualm has specifically been with the emotive attacks on those who merely happen to use the term and the notion that it is linguistically inappropriate. To highlight the subset of membership is something I too find useful.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 05:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Benz, While I understand your concern regarding the connotation of the term 'member', your comment above clearly excludes what is in most cases the first listed definition of the word: A distinct part of a whole In no definition of the word member have I seen free-will in joining as a pre-requisite. While it is an assumed connotation in many cases, and one which in our case is entirely incorrect, it remains your assumption as to the users' context. Entirely without my chosing, growing up I was a distinct part of TF, and as such I AM technically an ex-member - as are you, and most other contributors to this site. While I do not object to the use of that title per-se, I have not - and will continue not to - allow that, or any other 'title', to determine my life.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 06:23 (Agree/Disagree?) What?? Make sense Neeble, PLeeeese!! Regardless of whether "A distinct part of a whole" happens to be the first listed definition or not makes no difference whatsoever! This definition is copied out of the dictionary (www.dictionary.com): member n 1: one of the persons who compose a social group (especially individuals who have joined and participates in a group organization); "only members will be admitted"; "a member of the faculty"; "she was introduced to all the members of his family" [ant: nonmember] If your parents were members of the communist party does that make you a member? - Or an ex-member? Am I a member or ex-member of a congregation if I only ever went to the church as a child with my parents? Am I a member of a sex-fetish club in the event my parents held such a membership? Am I a member if my parents joined a cult and I left as soon as I was old enough to? To each of these I would answer "no", you may answer "yes" if it suits you. - You may wish to revisit your "In no definition of the word member have I seen free-will in joining as a pre-requisite", as the above definition clearly states "especially individuals who have joined and participates in a group organization". - Maybe look in more than just your pocketbook dictionary next time.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 07:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Even in your selected definition (out of 16 which are listed on www.dictionary.com) it does not say that one must willingly join, merely that the term is especially applicable to social groups to which one 'joins' and 'participates' (again, free-will is not in issue). In fact one of the very examples you quoted "she was introduced to all the members of his family" is quite comparable to our former relationship to the group. To answer your questions: No (unless they - with or without your permission or knowledge - also made you a member) Yes (the fact that you attended denotes participation, thus making you a MEMBER) No (again, unless you had any form of participation in their club) No, but you ARE an EX-member, seeing as how you had to LEAVE it. (If you were never a part you could not leave.) You are a MEMBER of something if you are a part of it. The fact that TF's beliefs and practices were forced onto us means that we WERE members, we played a part in the organisation (however unwillingly), and as such were MEMBERS. Again, my point is not that some members willingly elect to join - which is true - nor that the willing act of joining is (somewhat) commonly associated with membership in peoples' minds. But that membership does not by definition necessitate a willing (or even knowing) membership, and that as such it is a grammatically correct definition of our past relationship to TF. For you to take offence at your inferred connotation of anothers' use of terminology is neither accurate or clever, it is just prejudiced (and by that, I am using the definition: "A preconceived preference or idea" as found on www.dictionary.com)(reply to this comment)

From Benz Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 15:35 (Agree/Disagree?) As I'm sure Ne Oublie, you will come back with yet another side-winding argument, which I'd rather not waste any more time on, let me just say if it suits you to call prison inmates, prison members, or ex-prison inmates, ex-prison members, you may well argue your point further with your chosen broad definition. Likewise a student may well be a "member" in the broader sense, of a school, or a "member of the student body". But "former student" will be far more used think you will find than "ex-student" - which seems to connote something negative, I think you will agree. The point yet again I will make is TF has never had any legal right to call us its members, so I refuse to accept such a label which I consider improper and possibly not even legal. All I ever was legally to my mind, was a child in the legal care of my parents, what they chose to do aside from parenting me is up to them, but does not make me any sort of member or ex-member by association. Finally, on the subject of prejudice, I think rather I should agree with you on this one. I have been prejudiced by being called an "ex-member", and I AM prejudiced against labels which I find derogatory and offensive. - Nothing wrong with prejudice against wrong and injustice, IS THERE??(reply to this comment)

From My opinion Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 15:47 (Agree/Disagree?) The Family has no legal right to exist. The only reason they are still around is because they went overseas. If they had stayed in America the authorities would have cracked down on them many years ago. The Family is not a "religious group", they are a criminal organization that keeps passing itself off as a Church.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 14:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Ne Oublie, I, like you chose 1 out of 16 definitions given. - Am I more prejudiced than you then? I will demonstrate why your chosen definition does not fit the given context with the following two examples: 1) prisoner 2) student Is a prisoner a member of a prison? No, he is an inmate. "member" is incorrect usage, although by your definition of "A distinct part of a whole", you with your grammatical insights would no doubt call him a "prison member". Likewise with student, who is not a member of a school. - Again Nibbles, bad word usage on your part...tsk tsk. In both of these cases the choice to be a member is not applicable, hence the word member is not used. - You are the prejudiced dumb-ass, not I... - Another interesting usage of member would be "a member of a royal family", in which case one is a member by birthright. If one decides to abdicate their royal status are they an "ex-member of the royal family"? I believe you will find the correct term is "non-member", antonym of member.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, August 25, 2005, 01:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Benz, Amazingly(?!) the emotive and flaming response to my previous posts has significantly drained the joy from what I have so far considered to be a trivial semantic debate, so I'll close by saying that the difference between our positions is that I only need one definition to support my use of the word member - whereas for you to state that my use of the word is incorrect you have to show that there is not a single supportive recognised definition. I have not said that 'member' is the BEST definition, nor have I said that there are contexts and connotations of the word 'member' which are entirely inappropriate. I simply maintain that it is still an accurate description. An example of this would be that I would be correct to use the word 'gay' in reference to a jovial state of being, although in view of the current prevalent use of the word it would hardly be my prime choice of its many synonyms in the English language. Unlike you, I do not have a negative perception of the prefix 'ex-' (think ex-president) - though if I did, it would only make the term 'ex-member' in relation to TF all the more attractive. 'Non-member' is indeed the antonym of member, however it ignores the prior relationship which 'ex-member' implies, and which is the only reason to even mention a state of relationship to TF.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Thursday, August 25, 2005, 02:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess the most accurate definition of a word isn't always the shortest one, huh?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Thursday, August 25, 2005, 01:51 (Agree/Disagree?) **there are NOT contexts**(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 09:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Fuck you Ne Oublie! Just because you feel guilt for having stayed as long as you did in a criminal cult does not make us members at any time of that group. Let's be clear. You - I not equal! I ran away when I was seventeen. I was a minor. No, I was not ever a member, ever! I was in Mexico against my will. I tried to run away before. I wanted to be in school where I belonged. I didn't sit around jacking off to Jesus way into the 1990s. I got the hell out of there. I am a survivor of The Family. I was never a member. I was a child when I was subjected to their violence against me. I never paid a dime in any tithe. So, fuck you and your lame attempts to try and paint us with your projection and guilt. You may very well have been a member, but Benz and I were not. Put it on your fucking resume, but keep your damn labels off me. God, you annoy the hell out of me. Try not to preach at people like you used to do in the cult. If you can't resist, then shut up!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 09:27 (Agree/Disagree?) And another thing, The Family was never, ever, ever "preconceived preference or idea" for me or many hundreds of the other survivors here. In fact, The Family was never a preference for me at all! I wanted the hell out from day one. The whole idea of The Family made my skin crawl from the first moment I was thrust into one of their dirty communes teeming with half dressed sadists and pedophiles!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 10:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Alright, this is me apologizing for my tone. Ne Oublie caught me a the worst moment in my career. God I hate lawyers! Sorry for getting so upset about this issue. I think I was the one projecting. But, I still say we are survivors, not ex-members. We were too young to have voluntarily been a member of anything except maybe a secret neighborhood treehouse. We were kids afterall. (reply to this comment)

From Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 07:47 (Agree/Disagree?) As much as some aspects of the word "member" may apply, the term "member" or "ex-member" is much more appropriate to adult joiners. I consider myself an escapee, a refugee. I think for those of us born there, or at least for some of us born there (this sentiment may have something to do with the age and circumstances of our leaving and what positions we occupied in the cult hierarchy) there are much more accurate terms than "member," even if we have not yet come up with the most handy one. This is a rather half-baked comparison, but if I had been born in a cuntry that happened to have a totalitarian regime such as China, I might identify with the millennial culture of my ancestors without necessarily considering myself a "member" of the PRC, even if my having been born there meant I had no other nationality. In the case of the cult, there is this added twist that I might liken to not just being expected to be Chinese, but also a card-carrying member of the Communist party, whether at the level of MM, FM, AM or PMS.(reply to this comment)

from Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 22:31 (Agree/Disagree?) As much as James Chancellor tried to portray himself as a "fellow traveler" of the Family "disciples," I see peeking out in his writings an abiding sense of his superiority over them. I think he made the mistake of treating you and MovingOn participants as the same kind of beans that had simply been moved to the other side of the counter. When the fact of the matter is we do not have the incentive that the Family disciples had to win him over. And we no longer live groveling. And some of us have gotten educations to rival his. I think he expected us to be more sheep, just belonging to a rival fold. But it turns out we are not sheep at all, and belong to no fold. Shake, shake, shake that shepherd's crook. OOooh i'm impressed. Hoooowl ;-) (reply to this comment)

from Yeah RIGHT Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Is it possible that Chancellor is not so much operating in bad faith but rather out of remarkable naivete and gullibility? Look at this quote from him: "As I learned to function less and less as an outsider, I was more and more accepted and trusted. I am confident that on many occasions the disciples completely lost track of me as an outside observer." For its (black) humor value, see how he continues: "This not only enhanced the level of direct communication I had with the disciples during the interviews, but also allowed me to function as a “fly on the wall.” Certainly one of the most memorable of such occasions was a three-day extended stay with Peter Amsterdam and several of his assistants. Over the course of the long weekend we had approximately fifteen hours of recorded interviews. One of Peter’s female assistants handled the recording and was present to take care of any other needs. Late in the second afternoon, as we had been discussing aspects of the Family’s more unusual and provocative sexual beliefs and practices, Peter suggested we take a break. He looked over to the assistant and asked her if this was a good time, and she responded: “Oh yes, I could really use a masturbation break right now.” By this time, I was prepared to hear almost anything, and did not react in any way. Several weeks later this woman was transcribing the taped interviews and realized what she had said. She wrote me a very touching letter of apology in which she stated, “I just forgot you were not one of us.” http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Cornerstone_Magazine:_The_Family_and_the_Truth (reply to this comment)

From Fargo Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 17:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Having a great love of black humor, I have to ask the true Family experts: Does this scene seem, oh--I dunno--like just a little too obviously over the top? The whole exchange probably titilated the bejezus out of Churchy Chancellor, don't ya think? (reply to this comment)

From Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 18:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Uh, yeah. I have been wary of making a crack about that so as to not be one of the "abused ex-members amplify, exaggerate, and fabricate." You know, my one longing in life is to be validated by James Chancellor. But he has this line in the intro his book about his personal encounter with Jesus and I can just picture them having a close encounter in the woodshed harhar... Hey, hey, Jimmy, say How much Jesus did you love today?(reply to this comment)

From schadenFreud Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 18:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I forgot to mention, being that the girl in the masturbating story was an assistant of Peter, she was likely a choice piece of Revolutionary Woman. There is SOO much one could do on the couch with that story...(reply to this comment)

From next name change? Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 19:07 (Agree/Disagree?) The cult could call itself "The Assistants of Peter". It would be true on so many levels.(reply to this comment)

From Sister Mary Prophylactica Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 21:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Assistants of Peter? I'll have you know we're known as "Little Sisters of the Mercy Fuck," an esoteric order of nubile nuns and spirit helpers who brought you truly memorable moments of Life in the Family, such as spoon-gagging visions of an infantile Berg sucking on Zerby's tits and babbling about how many angels could dance on the head of a penis. (reply to this comment)

From lumpen proletariat Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 20:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Tsk, tsk! You're such a naughty boychick! Before you got carried away by the silly spirit of Hysterion, did you think to check yourself in the spirit and ask, "What have I done for Jezass (or a piece of ass) today?" La Loi de L'Amour--C'est formidable! So sad that a church christian like Jimmy C will never truly appreciate the exquisite skill with which Ms. Masterbation Break was jerking him off.(reply to this comment)

from ErikMagnusLehnsher Monday, August 22, 2005 - 21:39 (Agree/Disagree?) (This is a general comment on James Chancellor rather than one directed at Jules. Jules: you know how much respect I have for you.) OMG...has it come to this? Am I now apologist apologist? I'm not going to argue that Chancellor wasn't offensive with his snide "Can you say the same?" remark (as well as others)…because I was offended. I'm not going to contend that Chancellor hasn't been overly charitable towards TF…because he has. He has clearly focused his research on the group and in what ways it has changed rather than on the experiences of those of us who were born in it and subsequently left. This presents a gaping hole in what could be an accurate and balanced presentation of the group and it roots. He's clearly been the subject of an extended P.R. campaign by TF and he reacts accordingly. What frustrates me is that TF Leadership/Public Relations is able to make what amount to self-fulfilling prophesies regarding the evil, angry, violent, lying people that we all know we are (sarcasm intended). Thing about it: You're an academic. You get grants to do research and choose to research TF. You interview people of all ages in the group and write about what you hear and observe. You're warned by TF about these evil and bitter apostates who are bent on the destruction of TF at all costs. You write your papers...publish your books. You are contacted to do interviews about the group and describe what you have observed. Meanwhile, TF sends you quotes from these evil apostates talking about how your wife was in the cult and your objectivity is compromised because you’re an academic's version of Armstrong Williams (accepting money from TF in order to promote their agenda). As far as you know, you never lied about anything, yet, you get publicly dawged on as an academic whore. I don't see how this experience would make an academic more interested in expanding his research in order to provide a more balanced and accurate portrayal of TF. In fact, it seems like such actions could only bring a smile to the face of TF leadership. I know Banshee said he's on the take, "Nuff said", etc. Unfortunately, shortly before leaving the cult, I experienced an epiphany...I embraced the joys of critical thinking. This means that not only am I a persistent and insensitive ass, but that "Enough said" and "Do it because Daddy so" just don't get it done for me like they used to. I fear my condition is permanent. It’s nothing personal, Banshee. Your articles are great. It just doesn't make sense to me that the man would compromise himself like that and still be offering strategic advice like: "Every instance when an extreme exageration or outright falsehood appears, your chances of a just outcome diminish." I think this is a man who understands that a just outcome means abusers being frog-marched to jail and will testify that abuse did occur at the "direction and consent of leadership". So what do you do with Jimmy C.? Send an Email to the man. We're eloquent, smart and darn it...we're downright likeable sometimes. Most importantly we know the truth. The fact is that the TF documented much of their exploits in Eichman-esque detail. I'm sure there is a lot of material that Marc and Claire have neglected to introduce to him. If James Chancellor is in the pocket of TF, then I will publicly apologize (there I go again) and write a letter to the editor every damn time Chancellor is quoted and state that he is a compromised and non-objective apologist that gets money from TF in exchange for his services as an academic whore. I will agree that he is guilty of (let me look up that hilarious phrase...) "utter ass-clownery, tom-foolery and butt bonery". Better, yet, I will take a 6 month hiatus from any apologist activities of any type on this site. I will start going to those damned Apologist Anonymous meetings again, turn in my ACLU card and limit my comments on this site to poor attempts at humor, chit-chat and expressions of sympathy and support. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 14:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree. People in his position take money for their opinions all the time. It would be no huge stretch of the imagination to believe that he is on TF's payroll. He argues favorably for a group that practices criminal acts against children. He is either a sociopath with no conscience or is on the take.(reply to this comment)

From lu Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 13:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Erik, I think I hear what you are saying and I keep trying to figure out what it is that you feel some of the rants in this thread may be causing the non-Family survivors of Family abuse to lose out on. I might not be as curious if the sentiment came from someone else. Whatever that perceived "opportunity" might be, I am not sure that those of us who have survived child abuse in The Family should be expected to be some kind of "good samples" so as to entice James Chancellor into "expanding his research in order to provide a more balanced and accurate portrayal of TF." If he's not a big boy enough to understand the triggering effect of hearing/reading about his easy interactions with some of our main abusers, and even his taking a position, in certain instances, of giving them a platform for vindication at their victims' expense -- and deal with it -- then I don't think he has any business dabbling outside his current confines, even if he did want to. If in fact he does have the strength of character to look at this other side of the coin, then maybe he can add another quality to the list of things he is so proud of, along side his amazing ability to integrate and become a "fly on the wall" in a community that espouses such otherwise scandalous theological tenements [sic], as well as what Cornerstone terms his "transparently honest humility of approach." Maybe he can add the ability and grown-up-ness (I know, I made that up) to not get so rattled by a survivor's posts that may be confusing him with someone else or, as in the case of the rumor about his wife, a briefly floated rumor/speculation not even posted on a board where second-generation survivors interact! Let me point out that I personally don't think Chancellor has taken money from The Family or been FF'ed. But I am not at all convinced that he is interested in occupying some "middle" ground between apologists and what he has called "anti-cult activists and members of the scholarly community at war with “cults” like The Family" who he says "are wise to restrict their research sources to documents and hostile ex-members" because, he righteously notes, unlike his brave and magnanimous self, "It would be far too risky for them to come to know “cultists” as fellow travelers in the land." Or the "cult experts" he indicts for "hostility, avarice, and ineptness.” I mean, as was posted elsewhere in this thread, he has said of his invovement with The Family: "Life in The Family may well be the pinnacle of my scholarly achievement, and the “world’s leading expert on The Family” may well be the only mark of distinction I shall ever carry into a scholarly assembly. But all that would be severely limited, if not completely fractured if The Family were to repudiate what I produced and cut off all contact, and thus terminate any current claim at being “an expert.”" Do you think The Family would let him keep that MVP status if he also became a "fellow traveller" with the abuse survivors who have become "Vandari"? It's possible that Chancellor has no idea that some of the "former members" who he acknowledges "came forward and bore testimony of serious abuse as children of The Children of God" were testifying about some of his informants. I do find it curious that he seems to have this inexplicably schizoid view where he will acknowledge things like that testimony (and is then very loud as to how his acknowledgement shows he is not "whitewashing") but somehow segregates the rest of our accounts into this no man's land of people who "amplify, exaggerate, and fabricate." Maybe that is the bone he has to throw his cult handlers. Whatever is going on in his head, that is a crazy-making stance on his part that is not very coherent, and I think it is not one that those of us survivors who are still fighting against a lifetime of indoctrination that justifies or denies the abuse should be asked to accept with equanimity. I know for myself that the sexual, psychological and emotional abuse and exploitation was like a huge erasor that rubbed frenetically at the outlines of who I am. Now the erasor is always there, menacing, but I have primary custody of the sketch and it is my job and responsibility to protect the emerging picture. Sometimes it takes rage against the white out to do so. P.S.: If there is any of the above that you think James Chancellor would be justified in dismissing out of hand, please let me know what and why. (reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 06:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I hope the famous Lehnsherpsychoanalyzer is being kept in good working order on the outside possibility JC responds to your email. I suspect Chancellor harbors a desire to facilitate healing and reconciliation, so there is a possibility he will respond to you. If you can actually engage him in a productive dialog, I'd like to suggest inviting him to participate in an "online classroom" discussion of his book. The man did make an important contribution by documenting evidence that the abuse occurred as a consequence of leadership policy, and I'm glad you've recognized that. Unfortunately, Chancellor lacks the training of a scientist, and like many liberal arts' scholars, he makes more of his findings than his research methods can support. He actually admits in one of the cornerstone articles that he doesn't view himself as particularly adept at research--and he is correct in that self-assessment. Unfortunately, he also falls prey to the defense strategies of his poor training in research methods. Rather than say, "Yes, such-and-such IS a limitation of my study, and I'm not able to say this-or-that with any certainty," he personalizes the limitations of his work by staking his "personal reputation" on conclusions his findings can't support. So good luck! If anyone can get through to him, it's likely to be a witty charmer like you.(reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 21:19 (Agree/Disagree?) "A witty charmer". LOL. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if the hottie that is Mrs. Lehnsher sensed any charm in me whatsoever, I would be tapping something other than a keyboard in the wee hours of the night. :) But seriously... Lu eloquently made the point that survivors clearly should not be expected to be some kind of "good samples". I agree. If I implied that I didn't mean to. We have each had different experiences and carry our own scars. We clearly have no such responsibility and are under no obligation whatsoever to do anything other that try to forget our time in the group and do the best we can to get on with our lives. Many participants here have done so, so, so much more than that and I have done absolutely nothing so I would be embarrassed to be perceived as lecturing anyone. I’m clearly in no position to do so. Looking back on the changes that occurred while I was a teenager in TF, it's clear to see that many changes with regard to improved treatment of children and safeguards to protect us were the results of "bad publicity" and "persecution". TF has been historically a defiant and reluctantly reactive group that has only changed (to quote Ice Cube's dad in "Friday") when someone had a foot up its ass..."Bam! Bam! Bam!" I think media attention serves to keep a foot up their ass. If Jim is going to continue to be interviewed, it seems to me, that he should be better informed. If Jim expanded his research to survivors I think the tone of his statements would likely change and more pressure would be applied to TF. I realize he could jeopardize his "MVP Status" with TF by having dialogue with us but ultimately the man is a husband and a father so I am hopeful that at some level his instincts would override such concerns. I shudder to think about what TF might now be like or what my experiences might have been like, had my peers who had left not spoken out and effected change while on the outside. The mere fact that they weren't struck by lightning after leaving was a statement in itself, but they bravely turned around and came back for their siblings and friends (all the while being called liars by those they were attempting to help.) I think those of us who stayed in TF throughout the 90's clearly benefited from the sacrifices, blood and tears of those of us who generated "persecution" for TF. So I suppose that's my motivation: Gratitude for that, concern for children/young people still in TF and a desire to see TF Leadership's feet heldto the fire in the most effective way possible. So, WTF. I'll write to Jim Chancellor. Jules has clearly offered him the chance to participate in this forum but I'll write him, too. I have no delusions that a few emails or old GN's will dramatically broaden this man's horizons but it certainly can't hurt. (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Friday, August 26, 2005, 13:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Since I already put in plug for the movie "Friday" I thought I would post a link to an audio clip of the scene to which I was referring. I find this movie hilarious no matter how many times I watch it: http://www.moviewavs.com/cgi-bin/moviewavs.cgi?Friday=dog.wav (reply to this comment)

From key considerations Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) This quote from a 2002 Article by Chancellor probably explains a lot: "But, the message was clear. I had been deliberately and graciously allowed in. I was a special guest in their home, even a friend. And friends do not stab each other in the back; or hand the knife over to someone else anxious to do the stabbing. I took this responsibility seriously. And there was another factor. I had not only invested over five years of my life in this project, I had invested five very critical years of my career as well. I came into the academy late in life, as a second career. I came for my love of teaching, not scholarship. I am a very good teacher, but not a particularly confident scholar. And though “young” in terms of publication and academic reputation, I am far from being a young man. Life in The Family may well be the pinnacle of my scholarly achievement, and the “world’s leading expert on The Family” may well be the only mark of distinction I shall ever carry into a scholarly assembly. But all that would be severely limited, if not completely fractured if The Family were to repudiate what I produced and cut off all contact, and thus terminate any current claim at being “an expert.” And besides, I would lose some friends." http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Cornerstone_Magazine:_The_Family_and_the_Truth(reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 04:05 (Agree/Disagree?) jchancellor@sbts.edu (reply to this comment)

From Monday, August 22, 2005, 22:46 (Agree/Disagree?) EML, you said "It just doesn't make sense to me that the man would compromise himself like that and still be offering strategic advice like: "Every instance when an extreme exageration or outright falsehood appears, your chances of a just outcome diminish." I think this is a man who understands that a just outcome means abusers being frog-marched to jail and will testify that abuse did occur at the "direction and consent of leadership"." That is what a just outcome means, but it is quite possible that he knows as well as TF leadership does the tremendous obstacles that time, place and circumstances pose to the jailing of Family abusers. Those obstacles are why a Claire Borowik would taunt on CNN "if Daniel has a real complaint he should take it to court." The Family has committed a near-perfect crime. The survivors of the worst abuse are forced to choose between paying a high personal price for little to no possible justice, or trying to make a life or keep what we've made. By the time we are in a place where we are stronger in that sence, the obstacles of time, place and so forth will only have gotten worse. But it's good that someone can be chill about it. I wonder if there are any survivors that are equally as chill but who self-identify as having beenabused. (reply to this comment)

from Nancy Monday, August 22, 2005 - 11:48 (Agree/Disagree?) "Some television show from last year quoted me more than it quoted you, so therefore, I must be right and you wrong, even though we're talking about a subject that you lived for half your life and I, well, I know what the cult's spokespersons tell me." --James Chancellor (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Monday, August 22, 2005, 16:13 (Agree/Disagree?) I understood his 5-6 minutes out of 2 hours statement was more of an attempt to explain that he also said many less-than-complimentary things about TF but they weren't selected by the producers. Damnit! I'm defending James Chancellor again...Arghh!!(reply to this comment)

From Monday, August 22, 2005, 16:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I have forgiven you. Christianity is about forgiveness. (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Monday, August 22, 2005, 17:05 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL. An anonymous pardon. Now that's a first. :)(reply to this comment)

from Monday, August 22, 2005 - 09:27 (Agree/Disagree?) he even takes vocabulary from The Family spokespeople. It sounds like they might have sent him a suggestion of what to complain about: "But, please do not make accusations that are not substantive." (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, August 22, 2005, 10:17 (Agree/Disagree?) They probably sent him their media packet in which they tell all their talking heads what to say. Leave it to a cult to act like a cult and high like minded cult-thinking individuals(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, August 22, 2005, 11:06 (Agree/Disagree?) *higher like minded cult-thinking, as opposed to forward-thinking, individuals.(reply to this comment)

from anovagrrl Monday, August 22, 2005 - 07:26 (Agree/Disagree?) "I will continue to tell the truth about what happened to some of the children, and what is not happening to them now." Have you never learned about professional boundaries, Dr. Chancellor? Your PhD in religious history and MA in theology does not qualify you to do a risk assessment of the health, safety and well being of children currently growing up in a high demand organization such as TFI. You are not an "expert witness" on child welfare. Get up on the stand and try to pontificate beyond the boundaries of your expertise as a religion teacher, and you'll quickly find your testimony deleted from the record. Your insensitivity to and outright ignorance about the oral histories of trauma survivors is truly astonishing. Are you one of those theologians who thinks Jesus has all the answers and the Bible has all the knowledge you'll ever need? There is a large body of research literature on the topic of childhood abuse and neglect that I advise you to begin reviewing before attempting further communication with adults survivors. By what logic can you dismiss the oral histories of survivors with a standard that does not apply to the oral histories of current members? Have you honestly & objectively checked out TFI's literature and public testimony in the last 15 years for versions of history that change over time? I'm also astonished by your sensitivity and outrage over idle chatter about your social connections, such as a question (on another website) about whether you are married to someone in TFI. Yet, you decline to address the serious criticism of your work brought up in online conversations by exer and survivor scholars who have read your book quite closely. Are you totally unaware of the substantive issues that have been raised about your methodology and conclusions? Or are you just so insecure in your ability to defend your scholarship that you choose instead to divert attention from legitimate questions about the credibility of your work by impunging the credibility of Jules and other articulate survivors? If I didn't know better, I'd think you'd attended one of the Family's leadership training seminars in apologetics. (reply to this comment)

From Monday, August 22, 2005, 08:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah I wonder why he discriminates against survivors who aren't in the Family anymore as if only survivors still in the Family have any dignity. I wonder what he thinks of the rights of survivors he interviewed that have left the Family.(reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Monday, August 22, 2005, 11:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Chancellor's "Meltonian" arguement is that people who leave a high demand organization (HDO) are more likely to change (embellish & embroider) their stories over time than those who remain. First of all, there is no research evidence that this assumption is valid with regard to people born and raised in a high demand group. It may also not be an invalid assumption for adults who join and leave, but it's REALLY BAD SOCIAL SCIENCE to equate the perspectives & experiences of people born and raised in a group with those of adult joiners. Second, there is no reason to assume that abused and neglected children who form an alliance as young adults with their former perpetrators (by forgiving and making peace with the past) have a more accurate memory of events than who do not form an alliance, do not forgive, and do not make peace with the past as young adults. Those who remain are likely to minimize and rationalize the facts. How is that more trustworthy and credible than embellishing and embroidering? Finally, when close to 85% of the individuals born into a high demand religious group leave during early adulthood, the remaining 15% who stay cannot be said to represent the experience of being raised in the group.(reply to this comment)

From Totaly Agree Monday, August 22, 2005, 15:30 (Agree/Disagree?) And I also think that having been abused as a child makes someone much more likely to leave the Family as an adult. So it stands to reason that ex-sga's are more likely to have been abused than current member SGA's. (Mind you, I said "more likely". I still think a lot of the current members are actually lying.)(reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Monday, August 22, 2005, 17:28 (Agree/Disagree?) According to Chancellor, some young adults born into the group who had chosen to remain told him about their sexual abuse histories when he did his interviews in the mid 1990s. I've read the book several times--very closely--and he was most interested in documenting cases where the young adult had reconciled with her abuse history and integrated it into her faith experience as an active Family member. Problem is, that's one point in time. Studies of abuse survivors suggest that they revisit the trauma as they age and pass through different developmental stages. This doesn't mean they "embroider" or enlarge on the basic facts of the abuse, but they do come to different insights into what it means for them. Celeste Jones' story about deciding to leave after she gave birth is not unusual when it comes to the lifelong process of redefining the meaning of one's abuse experience. A very common trigger point for women with offspring is when their children reach the age they were at the time of their most traumatic experiences. Women who told Chancellor they'd forgiven, found healing through faith, and had committed to remaining in TFI may very well have come to a different conclusion several years later, particularly after the birth of a female child. Someone on this discussion thread suggested that Chancellor re-interview his young adult subjects now that it's been about 10 years since first contact. That's really a very good suggestion, because an attempt to re-interview of the original sample will show how many decided to leave TFI. Of course, we'll never know the answer to that if Chancellor never bothers to ask the kinds of questions that are relevant in the study involving abuse survivors. He also doesn't seem to be very interested in asking the kinds of questions that are relevant in a study involving abuse perpetrators. Despite Chancellor's evident lack of intellectual curiosity, he still considers himself qualified to lecture Jules on the subject of credibility. (reply to this comment)

From Monday, August 22, 2005, 19:57 (Agree/Disagree?) On KVOA back in January, Chancellor said that survivors in the Family had integrated their experiences in a very "positive" way as part of their normal culture. Implying that other responses are somehow not-positive. Positive for who, one wonders? For what? If that is positivity, why should we want it? I don't ever want to live in a world where non-NAMBLA or Family members could see that as normal!(reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 06:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, you've picked up exactly what Chancellor is interested in studying--"positive" integration of the abuse experience through "normalization." However, he doesn't know enough about this research area to carry it forward very successfully, or perhaps even articulate his basic assumptions are about the recovery phenomenon. Where I suspect he's really going with his "positive" integration framework is healing trauma through a personal encounter with Christ. THAT would be his concept of "normalization" within the cultural framework of Christianity. Chancellor is more likely to reference someone like Joyce Meyers rather than the seminal (and secular, scientific) research on recovery.(reply to this comment)

From Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 11:45 (Agree/Disagree?) As he put one such magic fixing event: "She had never spoken with anyone about this event, not even her other children or new husband. I wept with her through the trauma of recounting the whole episode, then prayed with her as she sought forgiveness and assurance of the welfare of her lost child in heaven." (reply to this comment)

From Precious Victory Monday, August 29, 2005, 20:56 (Agree/Disagree?) PTL and pass the Vicodin I mean the Victory! Amen!(reply to this comment)

From Precious Victory Monday, August 29, 2005, 20:56 (Agree/Disagree?) PTL and pass the Vicodin I mean the Victory! Amen!(reply to this comment)

from It's all good Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 15:21 (Agree/Disagree?) One of my non-exfam friends had this to say about the segment: "Dateline really made them out to be insane. She sort of proved their point." (reply to this comment)

From Another friend's take on the show Sunday, August 21, 2005, 15:53 (Agree/Disagree?) "Thanks for giving me a heads-up about Dateline. I watched it and I was sure you felt validated by the story that they did. For me, my heart was breaking thinking that you lived through a single minute of that experience. I am reminded, as you should be, as to the type of strong, powerful survivor that you are."(reply to this comment)

from Case Study Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 15:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Interesting person. Apparently he has the capacity for outrage...when it comes to himself and his reputation. Not about silly stuff like child rapes and beatings. (reply to this comment)

from Nancy Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:50 (Agree/Disagree?) I actually thought a lot of the movie the Butterfly Effect. It did a very good job at highlightening the moments in a child's life which can change it forever, the moments which rape ones innocence. Those moments, those experiences, which we all have, cannot be exaggerated. Their affect on ones life cannot be overestimated. Anyone who has experienced those moments knows that. It doesn't take a Phd to know that. (reply to this comment)

from ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 00:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I think for the most part, if there is any "changing and growing" of stories over time it has to do with the different perspective that we generate once outside the group (as Lauren explains so well in her post). While in the group we were taught to view our experiences in certain ways and after leaving it became more clear exactly how wrong those things were based on common standards of decency. Regarding statements coming from the current members being more credible, we all know there's a clearly demonstrated pattern of members being taught to lie in order to protect the group a la "Deceivers, Yet True". If he means that current members' accounts can't be as easily dismissed or marginalized, I would probably agree. I think such accounts are particularly damning and are important. I applaud the fact that those types of honest accounts are included in his book but will have to read the book before generating an opinion on how accurate the book is as a whole. I don't think James Chancellor is as bad as other "academics" as far as being in the pocket of TF nor is he as opportunistic but I think it's clear that some of his prejudices about former members are the result of a pretty extensive and dedicated campaign by TF. His skepticism of Jules (and former members in general) is personally offensive to me but I think it's the result of the company that he keeps. I think he does want to be fair and does want to be truthful and therefore I wouldn't write him off as a complete waste of time, yet. I would challenge the doctor to considering doing a couple things: 1) Identify people who were interviewed for his book and have since left and re-interview them. 2) Devote some time to interviewing people no longer in the group in order to develop a more balanced perspective. If James Chancellor is as interested in truth and a just outcome and being fair as he states, I don't think those are unreasonable things to consider. (reply to this comment)

from Banshee Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 23:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Think about this: The Family gives money to these "academics" on a regular basis. To help "support" their "studies". Now, with that in mind, re-read all that he says. I think it will speak volumes. (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, August 21, 2005, 10:51 (Agree/Disagree?) In all fairness, James Chancellor does not equal Gordon Melton. Melton is a vile, alcoholic, vampire-obsessed, "bought", worthless apologist who is an embarrassment to his profession. The fact that FCF gave Melton $10,000 has been documented and he has more than earned it. I'm not trying to defend Chancellor, though I guess I am, but if TF is already providing him with sound bites of information when they find a discrepancies (like the one about his wife) I would hate to provide them with more ammunition. I think that someone with his background would understand the ethical problems with accepting payment from a group that he's trying to develop an unbiased opinion of. I doubt he's accepted money from them. Many of us look forward to a day when any leadership or individuals that were/are abusers are frog-marched out of the TF and into court. In such a case, I see James Chancellor as a witness for the prosecution as much as a witness for the defense. Clearly, MovingOn is more of a support mechanism for survivors than a strategic planning committee and Chancellor's outcome-oriented approach can make him come across as insensitive. By nature, I'm probably hopeful to my own detriment, but I am reluctant to write him off as an apologist. I think he would benefit from more information and from seeing for himself that we're not the vitriolic, hateful liars that TF leadership would like to make us out to be. If he were to invite such dialogue, I think he would benefit from it and would distinguish himself from other "experts" that appear to get their marching orders from TF. (reply to this comment)

From Sunday, August 21, 2005, 16:58 (Agree/Disagree?) "I think that someone with his background would understand the ethical problems with accepting payment from a group that he's trying to develop an unbiased opinion of. I doubt he's accepted money from them." How on earth does his policy of only basing his opinion on current member's statements indicate someone who is "trying to develop an unbiased opinion"? I am also curious as to what you referred to as "Chancellor's outcome-oriented approach can make him come across as insensitive." What is the outcome he is oriented toward? Selling books? Why do you think he would have any desire to "distinguish himself from other "experts" that appear to get their marching orders from TF"? He has taken his cues from them thus far.(reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Sunday, August 21, 2005, 15:14 (Agree/Disagree?) No justification can be made for the man's vicious re-victimization of Jules. That issue alone very much calls into question the man's objectivity. I know where such questions stem from. Directly from email transmissons from Claire and Mark, in which they attempt to villify and call into question the truthfulness of survivors of abuse. Many of us remember being asked to sign out legal name to a piece of paper, literaly by the hundreds, that piece of paper was an affidavit stating that we had never once been abused. In my case, I had to sign such a piece of paper and furthermore Paul Pelloquin showed up with a video camera and made me make a statement saying I had suffered no abuse and that I thought my sister was being untruthful. I was less than 17 years old at the time, if I remember correctly, without my biological parents, in Thailand, with no money, no education and no access to any communications with the outside world. To top that off victor camps and MAP programs were being set up all over the place. I knew what those conditons were like from Renee Douthit who had come back from Macau and John Ireland as well as a girl called Mary. I remember thinking that Mary and Renee seemed really "weird" at the time. I didn't understand what the deal was, but it was strange. In looking back with more education, I now know they were displaying all of the classic symptoms of extreme Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I remember one of the girls having to be prayed over again and again against the "spirit of fear". Give me a break. Renee Douthit was also very sexually compulsive and constantly got in trouble for "flirting" with both teens as well as adults. Again, after getting an education I realized that was a classic symptom and acting out of a girl who had been severly sexually abused and very sexualized as a young child etc. ... It all comes together in my mind now. I was freaked out of my mind about being sent to a Victor camp or some sort of program. I had no recourse, I said whatever I thought Paul Pelloquin wanted to hear. I am so incredibly ashamed of myself today. But what was a child to do in such cirumstances? I look back and it sickens me to this day. A man who had sexually molested and committed crimes against my sister and was reporting directly to Zerby at the time on his video tour, holding a video camera to my face asking me to lie. I knew what would happen to me if I didn't go along with the charade. I knew what happened to my sister. So Mark, Claire and others are probably circulating affidavits of the sort we were made to sign under conditions of duress and false imprisonment as minors. I would not at all be surprised if some of our peers and siblings in the group have been asked to write things specifically slandering and untruthfully refuting accusations made by specific victims. He's probably seem some of those documents. I mean, the classic such document is the myconfusion.com website. That site is going to turn out to be one of the cult's latest and greatest blunders. It's been archived daily since it's creation. Stories are being checked, cross-checked, and systematically refuted. These young people are lying, or at the very best mis-representing the truth. When I think about some of those people I know who have made false statements on that site, I am just so thankful that I am not in their shoes. Those girls are going to be pretty damn ashamed when videos of them dancing around naked for Berg are released and affidavits from their peers and siblings at the time are presented with specific instances, times, dates, places, names and people. Once again, the criminal cowards such as Peter, Zerby, and others are simply hanging themselves. What are those young people lying for? To preserve a pack of cowardly criminals at the top who are too cowardly to fight their own battles, make their own TV appearances, give their own interviews, etc. ... To get a job in a "better home", to get an opportunity to go to W.S. or Mama's home where the girls are just viewed as fresh meat for the aging perverts there. To get knocked up and left with a child with no education, job skills, credit rating resume or what have you. To be a part-time clown on the weekend at 50 years of age to raise funds so you can send your tithe in? Every day I'm thankful I'm free. (reply to this comment)

From Banshee Sunday, August 21, 2005, 15:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Not all money given to these academics are routed through FCF. It's too traceable. I'm not just making an assumption about him getting money from the family. 'Nuf said.(reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Sunday, August 21, 2005, 16:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Melton got a whole lot more than $10,000 during the B.I. court case. He was also FF'ed, a very compromised man. (reply to this comment)

From ErikMagnusLehnsher Sunday, August 21, 2005, 16:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Agreed. He's a piece of shit. I mentioned the $10G because it was traceable from FCF but surely he's received much more than that.(reply to this comment)

from tuneman7 Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 21:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Last note "what is not happening to them now?!" Chancellor, address the issue of Thai John's children who were all viciously systematically and repeatedly raped and sodomized by their Malaysian "childcare helper", within the group last year, who was a CM member at the time. Ask your cult handlers about the incident. You'll probably get the same response that Claire Borowick gave to ABC when asked about Paul Pelloquin, the blank stare "what?!" treatment. Ask whether or not the incident was made known to cult leadership months prior to the fellows eventual excommunication. Ask what was done about it. Ask if they did anything to turn the perpetrator over to the authorities. Ask whether or not the children were given access to trauma counsellors. Ask why not. Chancellor, Zerby and her perv posse has really made a fool out of you man. (reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Monday, August 22, 2005, 19:49 (Agree/Disagree?) *have really made a fool out of you, man.(reply to this comment)

from tuneman7 Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 21:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I just re-read the clown's note to you. This thing gets my blood boiling. Specifically this: "But I can say this, everything I said in the entire interview; I believed to be fully accurate and true. Can you say the same? " Makes me so damn mad!!! That this "academic" is suggesting that Jules has spoken untruthfully. How dare this pittiful excuse for a man revictimize a survivor like this! What utter ass-clownery, tom-foolery and butt bonery!!! Where have I heard this before? The man is a talking mouth for Zerb, who repeatedly lies about the crimes she personally committed against my sister, and my personal friends, along with Berg and their criminal personal staff. He did get one thing right, and that is that justice needs to be done. Justice means locking Zerb, Peter, Matthew and all the other child molesting criminals up, for life, not in private confinement, in the general population!! Perhaps then when they are sexually molested and raped they will reflect on the suffering of my sister and others who were subjected to repeated rapes at such an early age. When they are mercilessly beaten, as imates are known to do to child abusers, they will reflect on the beatings endured by a young girl whose only crime was to "doubt the prophet", and say no to continued sexual molestations and exploitation. Whey they don't see the sun and feel what little presence of mind they have slipping away from them perhaps then they will know what it was like to be taken from your brother, mother and everyone you loved without the hope of ever seeing them again, and forced to do hard labor in Macau while being raped and by the people running the show. Forget it. The man is not worth another keystroke. This man is very stupid for suggesting that children born into this group were ever "members". The term "member" suggests that one freely elects to join a particular group or association. If, after being raised normally in society someone signs up for the group and then leaves, -- that makes then an ex-member. Not someone who was born into it!!!! Okay, I'm beating a dead horse. (reply to this comment)

from Benz Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 17:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I take complete offence to and object to a number of assertions by this so-called “expert” James Chancellor, in the above correspondence!! He says “the more the people in your community of abused ex-members amplify, exaggerate, and fabricate - then the less credible your cries for justice become - and the less likely any resolution will follow.” - So he calls us a “community of abused ex-members”. Firstly, NONE of us are members of something we never chose to be a member of. - My parents are the only ones in my family who are or ever were “members” of TF. - There is no law which I am aware of which allows someone to enforce any sort of “membership” on any individual, much less a child. In fact any such law would be criminal. Secondly, WE are not a “community”. - I am not a part of any such “community” of “abused ex-members”. - It simply does not exist. Mr Chancellor is trying to label us with a opposite political form to “TF”. Seeing as TF is a “community” of sorts, he seems to wish to portray us as being an opposing “community” of similar nature. In doing so, he also wishes to EQUALLY validate their claims and ours, as if to say, we both have equal elements of truth and mistruth to our claims and stories. However, we are not a “community”. If we exist in any political form, it is solely on the basis of common experiences and a common search for justice. - That does not make us a “community” and it certainly does not make any of us “members” of any such non-existent “community”. To put it short, none of the participants of this site are “members” of any “opposition group”, as such a group does not exist. Therefore how does Mr Chancellor expect Jules to speak for a “group” which does not exist. The way I see it, each individual person is responsible for how they deal with seeking justice from TF, however this site offers much moral support from others who are also dealing with similar issues. So, why does Mr Chancellor see the need to portray us as an “opposing community”. I will only make an observation, that it has to do with his own religious affiliation and his sense of “power” or “authority” in the realm of religious communities. He therefore tries to label us (many of whom are not religious), as somehow falling under his “expert” jurisdiction, when this is not the case. To Mr Chancellor: go away and write about something you know about. I may suggest for example your “expert” opinion may be required in ascertaining how many TF members can all “love” jesus, in TF’s own special way, all at the same time, all whilst balanced on the head of a pin, and make that a nappie pin!!! - Now that’s something I WOULD read!!! Basically I object to all of what Mr Chancellor had to say, so I won’t continue to go on wasting my time (it is the weekend after all), however I will say his tone to Jules reeked of condescension and his personal issue regarding an alleged remark regarding his wife, seems to have clouded what little objective judgement he may have had. To Mr Chancellor - with all due respect, you’re full of SHIT!!! (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 20, 2005, 18:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Exactly! We are the survivor community, not ex-members.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Saturday, August 20, 2005, 20:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree "we" are survivors of TF, but a "community" of survivors would depend on how you define "community". "We" are certainly not a "community" by the same definition that TF is a community. If because of an abusive upbringing that makes me an automatic part of a "survivor community", then my "community" consists of ANY person who has been abused, and not just by TF. It may seem trivial, but it is important to me that just as we are not ex-members of something we were never willing members of, so we are not "members" of a survivor community merely on account of our parents' membership with TF. I will not be defined by my parents participation in an abusive cult. I am also not going to be defined as a participant of an "ex-member group" or an "opposition to TF group", because my life does not revolve around TF or opposition to TF. What I despise about TF is the abuse of children which included rape, torture, deprivation of education etc and overall attitudes/ ideologies toward society which I believe are intolerant and dangerous not to mention illegal. I would be a willing member of a "group of persons opposed to child abuse, rape, torture, and abusive cultures", if such a group existed, and details of membership was defined. I don't think leaving TF makes anyone an inadvertent member of a survivor community, unless this "community" is better defined. - I am not a willing member of any such "community" that I know of. Furthermore I am certainly not a "member of a community of abused ex-members", when a) I am not an ex-member of TF, as I was never willingly so, and b) I am not a current member of any survivor community by choice. I think that participation on this site is more of a “support group” rather than a “community”. - Maybe I just have a highly contracted idea of “community” due to the “community” we grew up with, but my intention is to make a clear distinction between a “community of survivors” (by simple virtue of having survived) and that of chosen membership to a “community” (as in the case of TF). If "we" constitute an inadvertent "the survivor community", I agree with you Nancy, however not on the issue of membership, as I would first want to know exactly what being a member would entail and decide for myself IF I agreed with the particulars of the membership proposed. (reply to this comment)

From vacuous Sunday, August 21, 2005, 09:06 (Agree/Disagree?) It is called an online community.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, August 22, 2005, 02:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Both you and nancy with your brilliant one liners. You miss my point entirely so lookie here: com·mu·ni·ty n. pl. com·mu·ni·ties - A group of people living in the same locality and under the same government. - The district or locality in which such a group lives. - A group of people having common interests: the scientific community; the international business community. - A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the community of color. - Similarity or identity: a community of interests. - Sharing, participation, and fellowship. - Society as a whole; the public. Ecology. A group of plants and animals living and interacting with one another in a specific region under relatively similar environmental conditions. The region occupied by a group of interacting organisms. What I'm saying is that "community" is not a single-definition word. The context of the word is important as well as its intended usage. I think its fairly obvious that Jimmy Chancellor is calling the posters of this site a "community" as a double edged "label" (if you will), which I disagree with. Its important to me that each of us are viewed as individuals and are not "A group viewed as forming a distinct segment of society: the gay community; the ex TF community". - That my little friend is called marginallising yourself. - But don't listen to me, go right ahead. JUST not in my name!!! NOW if both you and nancy boy or anyone else doesn't get what I'm saying I give up.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 10:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you that the context of the word "community" is important. I do think that this web site meets the definition of a "virtual community", which generally means people who interact with one another on the internet. It is a much looser definition than a traditional community. http://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/ The word I do object to is "member". I never ever use this term in regards to those interacting here, but usually "participant". Apart from the obvious trigger effect of that word, member indicates a concious signing up or joining. We did not choose to join anything. There are no requirements for participation here, other than those who were not born or raised in the Family respect this space. I completely agree with you that Chancellor seemed to be viewing this and other web sites as a inverse version of The Family, with some sort of membership, hierarchy and level of control, when nothing could be further from the truth. This sort of projection is somewhat understandable coming from members and leaders of The Family, but to hear this from an "expert" is bizarre. Chancellor seems to lack a basic understanding of grassroots activism, which if anything is the model that best fits the action that is taken as a result of discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grassroots Thinking about it, religious movements usually develop as a result of a charasmatic leader who attracts a group of followers. Activism and social change stem from widespread outrage against oppression and injustice and is sparked by those who have been themselves effected by such inequality. Given Chancellor's own Baptist beliefs and his background as a religious historian, I think I understand why he is not able to see that he is comparing apples and boxcars. One of the major differences between us and those who joined cultic groups is that for us, the religious aspect is secondary to the cultural one. We were not members of a new religion going through growing pains, we are survivors of a totalitarian regime. While there are some things we do have in common with FGAs, there are so many others that we do not. On the subject of definitions, "Astroturfing" is a fun term which "describes formal public relations projects which deliberately seek to engineer the impression of spontaneous public reactions ... by many diverse and distributed individuals acting of their own volition, when in fact the efforts are centrally coordinated." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing Sounds like the MyCollusion propaganda to me. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 04:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Brilliant Jules, I'd never heard the term "grassroots activism" or "astroturfing", but they are perfect descriptives. "Grassroot activists" are exactly who I'd like to think we are, promoting non-violent action and rejecting "hierarchical and ideological organization structures". As far as communities goes, agreed we are an online community. - Haven't yet had time to read the entire link but will get around to it no doubt. My main concern was, as you described, that the "grassroots" - online community we are was being referred to rather in terms of a community with "hierarchical and ideological organization structures", as is TF. That is borne by the way Jim Chancellor absolutely insinuates that you must be held somehow accountable for and should do something about any perceived embellishment or variance in abuse stories. - He is saying quite clearly "If you don't tone down people’s stories no-one will believe you, & I won't back you". Its a veiled threat, but its there. The point is, no-one can dictate to anyone else how they come to terms with abuse and hurt, you know that and have said so, and I assume any true medical professional will agree with you on that point. On the subject of the “ever growing stories”, I have to ask if kids were taught whilst growing up that adults fondling and/or having sex with them was "God's love", and that abusive punishments were "God's love", then the reframing of those experiences, and understanding firstly that they were terrible happenings is in itself at first a monumental step for someone, not to mention coming to terms with how they actually deal with the resultant pain, which they may only feel for the first time as their understanding/ perception of the event changes. Incidents we didn't think were bad because of what our parents forced us to believe were "right and wrong", suddenly take on a completely different feeling and understanding when the memory is revisited with the understanding of "greater society" which we become exposed to. It can be extremely painful, not just because the hurt we experienced is only then being felt but because we also have the mixed understanding of just how much our parents and those "caring for us" betrayed us. I can say from my own experience that things I was taught were "perfectly normal" whilst growing up, I've learned to be anything but since making friends and acquaintances with “ordinary” people in society at large. But it wasn't a sudden realisation, it came each time I behaved in a way which was unusual to others, and each time I had reactions which were peculiar, and which sometimes seem(ed) down right strange to people without my upbringing. It has been painful at times, the feeling of isolation, of not knowing your own reactions to things, and why they are so different to others. So in short, Jim Chancellor's comments regarding the changing and/or worsening stories of abuse I feel are completely inappropriate, insensitive and callous when considering the actual experience of coming to terms with such abuse and betrayal by our own parents. Granted sometimes the emotions of people expressing abuse may incorporate not only the act itself but the effect it had on the victim. But since when does a person who has suffered abuse need to a strictly non-emotional descriptive of just the actions in themselves, without portraying what also occurred which was complete betrayal by those who were supposed to be protecting us and who had authority over us. - And no, no-one should feel ashamed to tell their story, and to tell it how they feel it. That is the beauty of expressing ourselves and the opportunity this site provides, thanks again Jules for setting this up, it has been a forum of tremendous healing and strength for me. I am confident, in fact I will risk whatever “Professional Reputation” I will ever have present and future, that those telling their abuse stories here will be found to be many times more truthful than those telling their “stories of bliss” on the “Myconclusion” site. - I’m sure a lie -detector test would bear that out (not that I’m advocating that), but I’m sure it would!!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, August 22, 2005, 10:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, take a deep breath, think about Angelina Jolie and we'll all be okay. Repeat after me, "Nancy is not arguing that with me. She's with me on the 'we are not a group' argument. She only put survivor community in her post in agreement with me, not to argue the word community with me. Nancy thinks I am brilliant and valuable. If Nancy didn't think so, she would not have given me all thumbs up so many times. Nancy loves me just the way I am." Then, remember to breath again. ;) BTW, Nancy - Nancyboy, not the same thing. Last time I checked I had a very nice rack and although it's been said I have balls, I do not have a literal set. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, August 22, 2005, 14:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Cool, think I've recovered from my over-heating.... I'm not angry, just frustrated that despite our incalculable efforts to individuate ourselves from what we were forced to be with our parents in the group, on physical, psychological, philosophical, emotional and other levels, in most cases discovering and re-forming our identities, we are yet again "grouped" by another collective. I like most, hope to be a responsible member of my chosen global community, business community, education/ campus community, sports community, special interests community, political community, etc. - These I have chosen. TF, was forced on me in an effort to assume my unwitting (and ignorant) membership - by which they thought they could then claim my vote. My individuality is mine, it won't be pried from my cold dying hands, I am not a helpless child and won't be ensnared under some assumed collective, or further marginalised without having THE last say. BTW: Nancyboy = your antithesis (reply to this comment)

from tuneman7 Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 15:04 (Agree/Disagree?) I read portions of the Dr. Chancellor's book and was massively unimpressed. Tossed the thing to be quite honest. His note to you, Jules, is just appalling. Boy, the cult sure has that guy in their pocket. And now he's afraid that the world is starting to see it. Like usual, he's just concerned with himself at this point, i.e., "Don't say I lack credibility. Don't say my wife ever had anything to do with the group." A-dyed-in-the-wool apologist for vicious criminals. Sadly, the dye, in his case, is the blood of our siblings and peers, mixed with our own tears shed while we bury them young because of the horrific crimes that were committed against them as innocent, helpless children. What a joke this clown is. Very much like that "whore" (I think the term is) Lilliston who said that Rick was "well adjusted, yadda. … yadda.", and then never returned my call after Richard's death. What a reproach these excuses for men are to institutions that issued them their pieces of paper and those that subsequently give them tenure. I hope that Dr. Chancellor will follow through on his suggestion that he will testify in civil or criminal proceedings. Although his spinelessness may do more damage than good. Who knows. As for the group, they're as brain dead and perverted as ever. Their argument boils down to "It was okay to molest children so that we could have persecution which will prove that we're 'living Godly in Christ Jesus'." Talk about brain-dead circular logic. They'll never get it. Excellent response, Jules. You have far more credibility than that man or anyone in the group will ever have. I know exactly how the young people who are allowed to talk to academics are prepped. Celeste Jones and I went through three months of that prepping process together in Thailand. Also the group will never let these young people just randomly chill on a campus with these academics for any extended period of time on their own without elders, it's always massive prep beforehand, and crazy debriefings afterwards. I agree with the principle of having a zero-tolerance approach to any possible fabrication or exaggeration of stories etc. … I've seldom, if ever, seen this in the community of survivors. Unfortunately, the truth, all too often either never stated, or understated. From a simply logical perspective, what does any survivor have to gain from doing the hard, heart-wrenching work of coming forward and confronting their abusers and having the courage to hold their head up while tears stream down their face as they painfully re-live the atrocities committed against their innocence? Every survivor who has come forward has done so at incredible personal cost. I've adopted a policy of complete disclosure with any woman I date that I want to have a meaningful relationship with and I've had some never call me again after I've told them about my past. I've also had others accept and respect me. Those experiences were, in the words of one of my dearest soul mates, who recounted a similar experience to me, some of my most healing experiences. Either way, it is not easy. I've known people who have suffered in their place of work etc. … The bottom line is; we are beautiful, we are truthful, we are strong, we are courageous, and we are incredible human beings. We are children born and raised with darkness, distress, exploitation and pain, who now live in light, share hope, share love and the reality of the future we are claiming for ourselves and whatever the joy we share with one another in our daily accomplishments. We are beautiful and we triumph. These other miserable excuses for humans, (cult leadership), are our antithesis. As for the apologists who seek notoriety as "experts", by doing what the cult requires that they do in order to gain access to their membership, a very dark shadow hangs over them, and in time they will have to eat their words, or at the very least revise their stance considerably. In the most extreme Lillisonian-type cases, I can't see why anyone would want anything to do with the dude. They discredit themselves, not we. For ostensibly intelligent and well-credentialed people they certainly can be pretty stupid. No matter, while I may never be a PhD, some of our peers who got out early enough will be or are already. They will write someday, and they will do an incredible job, certainly a lot better of one than this fellow, Chancellor, and they will be taken seriously. Forget these ass-clowns and have a great weekend. (reply to this comment)

from Houyh Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 14:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Mr.Chancellor, You have done what many in the academic community has done for years with TF- MISDIAGNOSED! You made your money writing a book where current members confessed to crimes against children- and you did not report these people to law enforcement? One of my pet projects will be to ascertain if you failed your duty in regards to MANDATORY REPORTING LAW. The issuse has never been whether the larger community should embrace TF as a "new religious movement." Their beliefs are not at issue, insofar as those beliefs keep them within the bounds of the law. They will pay for their crimes-their acts- not what has come out of their mouths. Justice (without vengence) will have to hold until true accountability sets in. (reply to this comment)

from Lauren Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 12:35 (Agree/Disagree?) You know, sometimes there comes a point where a person just can't take the BS anymore. My personal issues over growing up in The Family are nothing but dead weight to me and it sometimes frustrates me that I can't just cut loose and lose the anchor completely. It seriously pisses me off when I have to spend any ounce of my energy focusing on the dimwits that run The Family and their verbal diarrhea. That's why I avoid their blathering at all costs. It's bad enough when the verbal waste is from The Family leadership and their nefarious lying spokesperson, Claire Borowick. But when the same putrid lies come off of the national airwaves in the form of NBC's Dateline show, or in the words of a supposed "expert" apologetic James Chancellor, that goes beyond disgusting and into abominable. First, let me say this about Chancellor's book "Life in The Family": I have read it. And I found it to be a weak, whitewashed version of my childhood. Chancellor says, "[In]… my book … members of the Family are on record admitting the sexual, emotional, and psychological abuse of the children." Yeah, that's true. There are a few of those stories spread throughout the book. They don't even begin to touch on the enormity of what happened to us as children when we were growing up. How any person in their right mind (namely Melton, Chancellor and Family Leadership) can claim that, "…Statements [coming] from persons still within the Family, they carry far more credibility than those accusations from some ex-members, whose stories often change and grow with time" is just beyond my level of understanding. That argument is fatally flawed from the get-go, and here's why: When a young person has been born and raised in a particular environment and has been told all of his or her life that what happened to him or her was of God, was in love and was most certainly not abuse, when that person talks about what happened to him or her, he downplays the seriousness of it because he or she does not believe it really could have been all that bad regardless of how traumatizing and horrible it was. How do I know this? Because it's happened to me, it's happened to my family and it's happened to most of my friends and I see it happening with former friends still in the group. Besides that, it makes total, logical sense. If you don't get this concept you have no business interviewing children born and raised in a cultic environment. My story in The Family, in a nutshell is this: I was sexually molested by adult men from the age of 12 to 15 (this was both before and after 1986). I was deprived of any education beyond the age of 12. I spent my childhood and teen years caring for other people's children, doing menial labor or begging on the streets. I spent a number of my teen years without proper clothing in freezing temperatures. Through most of my teen years I had no idea how to contact my parents and any communication that I wrote was screened over by the adults whose care I was placed in. I received exorcisms more than once, was restricted all food over 3 day periods more than once, was put on silence restriction for several months in a row. I was threatened with physical violence. And yet, in spite of all the above, when I was still in the group I could not admit that I had been abused. When people would ask me flat out if a certain event occurred, my response would be, "well, yes, but it really wasn't that bad." To this day, I cannot admit that I was abused, although I do realize that what happened to me was abuse. Anybody in their right mind who has lived a reasonably normal life knows that sexually fondling a child is abuse, that depriving a child of education and utilizing child labor is abuse. Family members don't seem to get this. In fact, in a recent Family publication, Family leadership in showing their members how the current accusations against them could not possibly be true, stated the following: "You have been persecuted for proselytizing the youth, for converting heathen in countries where that wasn't looked well on. You have been accused of child abuse, child slavery, trafficking children, prostitution, drug abuse, drug trafficking, treason against governments, money laundering‚ and many other allegations." (GN3556, "The Persecution Confirmation" dated 04/05) The amazing thing about the above paragraph is that with the exception of drug abuse and drug trafficking, all of the allegations are true. They just don't realize it because they believe they are special and above the law. Chancellor says that, "statements [coming] from persons still within the Family, they carry far more credibility than those accusations from some ex-members " Well, I happen to know that this is bullshit. I have read the stories from the young people at myconclusion.com, and there are several accounts from former friends of mine. They claim to have never been abused in The Family. Well, I would like them to define abuse, because I personally know of sexual and physical acts that were perpetrated against them as children. We won't even get onto the subject of educational and medical neglect/abuse, or emotional trauma. James Chancellor, if you really believe your own hype, you've got your head up your ass. The second thing I would like to say is: Chancellor, if you'd read the websites for yourself instead of just relying on bits and pieces forwarded on to you by the Family leaders who have you in their pocket, then you'd know that the rumor about your wife was not even made on the Movingon website, but rather on one frequented almost exclusively by adult former members of The Family: http://www.exfamily.org/cgi-bin/gf.pl?fmt=dyn&t=chatbbs&m=9&s=0&r=chatbbs/genx/genx_main.html If you'd stop relying on what people in The Family tell you and do your own research, you might actually get somewhere. If you haven't read the stories told here: http://www.movingon.org/abuse.asp then you have no business talking about "Life in the Family" As far as The Family saying that they've changed. You know what, I used to actually believe that. I was especially vocal in espousing that very same train of thought when I first left the Family. There may not be blatant sexual abuse anymore, and I'm sure there is a lot less physical abuse as well. I am not entirely convinced about the level of education. However, I have become convinced through the Family leadership's own writings, that their own mind on the matter has not changed. A classic example of this is GN3556, "The Persecution Confirmation", written only a few months ago. In essence the entire GN is a justification for why the "radical doctrines" of the past (read: sex with children) was not a mistake and the main reason for the anger felt by hundreds of The Family's former children has nothing to do with the abuse they suffered (again, read about it: http://www.movingon.org/abuse.asp), but rather it's because the Devil hates The Family. The entire GN is pretty much one large long blessing by Jesus on child abuse. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself. Then come back and tell me that you have a much better chance of getting the truth out of current members. You'll especially like the part that says, "It's time to realize that you are not a passive, peace-loving, and gentle movement when it comes to coexisting with evil. You are a radical, active, fighting army that will die before it compromises again." (paragraph 56­) Words fail me. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 20, 2005, 19:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Say it, Lauren! Scream it. Scream it until someone starts listening. I was sexually molested, too, in 1991. 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! 1991! What happened to the guy? Nothing, that's what! They, the national officers of Mexico, Marc, Andrew and Rose, told me to shut up and not even tell my parents and the prep carried on like he passed me the salt at the table rather than raping what little innocence was left in me at 17, 4 years into the torture the Family committed. Does no one hera my cries?! 1991! Chancellor, how do you sleep at night knowing you are part of this evil organization?!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 20, 2005, 19:06 (Agree/Disagree?) *perp *hear And by the way, did I mention 1991?(reply to this comment)

from Nancy Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 11:44 (Agree/Disagree?) It's amazing how some people with a PhD will prostitute themselves. I use plaintiff's "experts" all the time in my cases. We call them whores. They ask us what we want them to say in their reports before they write them. There is a set price, almost like a menu, of how much their time costs. Thr firm pays and we get what we want for our clients. The only difference here is that we only use accredited "experts" with academic or professional associations. Not even the newest fly-by-night insurance company accepts the "expert opinion" of free range "experts" with no affiliations. If it weren't for those pesky scrupples, I might even start selling my "expert opinion" when the business of law gets slow. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Saturday, August 20, 2005, 12:58 (Agree/Disagree?) What gets me is that we actually are "experts" on growing up in the Family. Chancellor, while he does have a Ph.D, teaches at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His credentials are in history of religion and an Masters of Divinity. How exactly those fields of study and a few months spent with the group makes him an expert on the effects of abuse on children raised in The Family is beyond me. (reply to this comment)

From Benz Monday, August 22, 2005, 06:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Did a bit of online looking around about James Chancellor: He is listed as one of “The Family’s” Experts on their site http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/referrals/experts.htm “The Family” also endorse his book on their website: http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/books/book9/book9.htm As you said, his title at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is: W. O. Carver Associate Professor of Christian Missions and World Religions, and his area of specialisation is said to be “Islamic culture and New Religious Movements”, as per the SBTS site: http://www.sbts.edu/academics/missions/faculty/ChancellorJames.php?id=current He is listed with Duke University as a 1989 PHD Graduate in Religious Studies on their website: http://www.duke.edu/web/gradreligion/alumni/phdbystate2004.pdf. As noted he is the Author of “Life in The Family: An Oral History of the Children of God”. The book has a foreword by his apparent sideshow William Sims Bainbridge, author of the following books: - The Sociology of Religious movements - 1996 - The Future of Religion: Secularization, Revival and Cult Formation - 1986 - Berkshire Encyclopaedia of Human-Computer Interaction - 2004 - The Endtime Family: Children of God - 2002 - Social Research Methods and Statistics: A Computer-Assisted Introduction - 1992 - Survey Research: A Computer-Assisted Introduction/ With IBM and Compatible Software Disk - 1988 - A Theory of Religion - 1996 - Satan’s Power: A Deviant Psychotherapy Cult - The Space-Flight Revolution: A Sociological Study - 1983 - Religion, Deviance and Social Control - 1996 - Goals in Space: American Values and the Future of Technology - 1991 On the subject of “Ricky Interview” the Rick Ross site has a reference to an interview Chancellor did with KVOA TV on 20 January 2005 (not even 2 weeks after Ricky died), http://www.rickross.com/reference/family/family21.html in which he says among other things "I've read the correspondence between he and his mother. She did make efforts at reconciliation. She did apologize to him for the pain he endured. That didn't seem sufficient for him." Mr Chancellor has also written on the subject of Islam and contributes to “Christian commentary” on the subject ie: http://www.baptiststandard.com/2001/10_29/pages/islam_profs.html, and http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=18425. He does not appear to agree with Bush’s opinion that “Islam is a religion of peace”. But the best site is this one: http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?633 This is a long interview by Chancellor re “The Family”, and I particularly like this passage: “Why, if for any reason, is a discussion of the Family important to the Church? The Family provides insight into a number of areas that should concern the Church. One is the potential for – let us say drift and innovation – when a community has a living prophet. As I tell my students – when a religious community has a living prophet, anything is possible. The Family is a virtual laboratory for the observation of just how that can work out. I think the commitment of the disciples, the sacrifices they have and are making to share the gospel (as they understand it) is something the broader church needs to see and understand. When I have Family disciples visit my classroom, the reactions of students are mixed, but most are in some ways shamed by the level of dedication they observe. I think those are two good reasons, beyond the general need to know and understand what is happening at the fringes.” - So he has people from TF visiting his classrooms and his students are “shamed by the level of dedication”. But best of all folks TF and all of us are “a virtual laboratory”. With such a collection lab-rats like TF & our “abused community of ex-members”, we are bound to be his own personal cash-cow for years to come. One other point apparent similarity is that SBTS seems to be related to (or a part of) the Billy Graham School. - Didn’t Berg meet Billy Graham and always speak very highly of him. - I’m not saying Billy Graham was bad (I haven’t looked into that), however as Berg is of Evangelical origins it makes sense that someone like Chancellor would be trying to somehow “salvage something” in one of their own wayward sons. - We on the other hand are collateral damage…expendable to the “greater” view of those dumb-ass religious “experts”. I only wonder “What piffle doth the chancellor eat, that he grow so certain?”(reply to this comment)

From roxal Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 14:08 (Agree/Disagree?) This paragraph of the interview on that site really bothers me: “In the late 1980s, the Family became increasingly aware of the serious problem this was for the children and the movement as a whole. Strictures were put in place, with very specific guidelines and age limitations on any sexual encounters. Adult sexual contact with a minor became an excommunicable offense and remains so today. It took awhile for this to work through the Family, but by the time I began my research in 1993 the sexual abuse and exploitation of the children had ceased. As much as a religious community like the Family is capable, they have repented, and certainly have repudiated this part of their past. I am fully confident, and have even staked my professional reputation on the line, in saying that children raised in the Family today are less likely to be sexually abused than those raised in the “general population” of American society, and certainly are safer than those brought up in the Roman Catholic Church.” I would like to know on what figures he is basing this information. “I am fully confident, and have even staked my professional reputation on the line, in saying that children raised in the Family today are less likely to be sexually abused than those raised in the “general population” of American society, and certainly are safer than those brought up in the Roman Catholic Church.” Logically thinking, a child is more likely to be molested by a non-related adult if placed under direct supervision and care of a non-related adult. In normal society a child would only be taken care of by a non-related adult or teenager when the child’s parents need a babysitter, childcare taker and so on… otherwise, they are usually taken care of by their own natural or adoptive parents. (Of course I’m not including schooling, because in a school environment with other class mates and local laws protect them, the child will be pretty damn safe.) While in contrast, in TF, children are daily and constantly placed under the care and supervision of non-relative adults and local laws are not taken into account as strictly if at all. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but given these facts, I would have to logically conclude that a child raised in TFI, in the environment of constantly being placed under the direct supervision of an adult or teenager of non-relation would be much more likely to be sexually abused by a non-related adult than a child who lives in normal society. I know that I’m not providing any proof here, but I believe that logical thinking would be the first step in trying to come up with such a conclusion. The next step, I believe, would be looking for actual figures, data and numbers to prove my theory. My point is of course, that Mr. Chancellor skipped a few critical points (in my opinion) to finding the answer to this question. His assumption seems to be taken out of thin air, because if he would have first, thought logically about it, and second, researched a little to find proof to back up this claim, I assume he would have come to a similar conclusion to the one I just came up with. If I had a PhD and my “professional reputation” stood on the line, I sure as hell would have really made sure that what I was saying could be backed up by real figures. Also, for him to carelessly add “and certainly are safer than those brought up in the Roman Catholic Church.” is totally outrageous. I’m willing to bet my “puny reputation” that he doesn’t have any sort of proof to back up this ridiculous claim. I mean, the Catholic Church is huge, and just because there have been a few hundred cases of reported child abuse within the Catholic Church by Catholic priests (I’m assuming this is the abuse he was refferring to), I doubt that there’s any sort of possible comparison with the numbers of the reports of abuse in TFI. I am not a PhD scholar and much less an expert on new religions but I believe that if he really wants to be taken seriously, he needs to devote a little more time into credible research and much less time trading ideas with the brainwashing leaders of TFI.(reply to this comment)

From Sister Mary Prophylactica Wednesday, August 24, 2005, 09:32 (Agree/Disagree?) What you're talking about is called "risk assessment." It is used by child protection workers all the time to make decisions about when and how to intervene in cases of suspected abuse. Research has shown several factors that are closely associated with a high probability of sexual abuse: frequent geographic relocations (e.g., missionary kids), closed communities (e.g., fundamentalist Mormons), institutional male dominance (e.g., Roman Catholics), highly sexualized environments (e.g., TFI), caretaker history of victimization as a child, domestic violence & substance abuse, low income & female economic dependency, chaotic & unstable family structures. The sexual abuse of children living in the general population is a huge area of social & behavioral sciences research about which Chancellor appears to be completely ignorant; within that huge area of research, there are a limited number of studies on the sexual abuse of children by clergy or other adult members of religious groups. This is not a particularly easy topic for applied research for a number of reasons about which Chancellor is equally ignorant, including the fact that it's extremely difficult to get samples that will allow the researcher to generalize findings to a larger population. Chancellor's statements are problematic because he doesn't provide an adequate description of his study sample anywhere in his book, so there's no way to verify whether the people with whom he talked with actually represent a cross-section of the TFI population--we just have to "trust" and "believe" that what the good doctor says about the sample holds true for TFI as a whole because he said so, and he's a credible religious authority with a professional reputation as an ethical academic to uphold. Second, the ethnographic method Chancellor used to do his study cannot support any generalization of findings beyond the immediate study sample. His research methods only allow him to make general statements about the people he interviewed, NOT about children growing up in the larger society or the Roman Catholic church. Chancellor is not a social scientist by training, and he's made some serious mistakes in how he's chosen to handle interpretation of study findings derived through social science methods. Note to Professors of Religion who dabble in sociology: In the world of social science research, credibility and professional reputation are based on the depth and rigor of one's work, NOT on how well one has mastered the art of persuasive argumentation and rhetorical appeals to moral authority.(reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Monday, August 22, 2005, 17:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Impressive commentary--there's nothing quite like someone who does their homework. Too bad Chancellor's analytic skills aren't as good, because you've made a good point (in my opinion) about Berg's evangelical origins prompting Chancellor to want to "salvage something" in one of their wayward sons. I picked up on Chancellor's evangelical bias in the following statement from the Cornerstone article: "I am fully confident, and have even staked my professional reputation on the line, in saying that children raised in the Family today are less likely to be sexually abused than those raised in the “general population” of American society, and certainly are safer than those brought up in the Roman Catholic Church." Excuse me? I don't know of any research that would support the view that Roman Catholic children face a GREATER risk of abuse than children raised in an aberrant evangelical cult like TFI. But that's exactly what Chancellor says, leading me to suspect he's anti-Catholic at best and dangerously ignorant about the dynamics of child sexual abuse in religious organizations.(reply to this comment)

From Benz Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 05:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Absolutely, where's the research to support the bold claim that the Roman Catholic Church is less safe than TF in terms of raising kids? Is his "professional reputation" that meaningless that he doesn’t even bother telling us how he has reached such a conclusion, or what research, statistical, clinical or otherwise has lead him to announce such a brave proclamation? I see, that must be why in many countries Catholic Schools are considered among the best, often difficult to get openings for and largely have high tuition costs, and why TF still serves their kids expired food (garbage), in many countries - and still calls themselves a “Charity organisation”, go figure!! On the subject of the Roman Catholic Church, an interesting parallel may read: TF is to the Evangelicals what Opus Dei is to the Roman Catholics (a la "The Davinci Code). - In that TF has no links with Catholicism, but is born from Evangelical roots, in which case the Pope for example really has no connection to TF, and would have no real sense of ownership whereas someone like Jiminy C probably would. - Just a thought, but just as Catholicism has its radical off-shoots over which it still exercises some form of influence, is it not interesting that in the Cornerstone article HMS KING Peter was actually asking how TF may become more “mainstream“, much like a little kid who's been bad and want's daddy and mommy to let him sit at the "big" table again. - Much of TF's actions, reactions, revolutions and whathaveyous can be easily reframed in the context of a rebellious child seeing how long they can throw a tantrum, in this case indefinitely. - However they never lose the elemental thought of "the parent". I wonder if TF can be seen to be trying to sanitise their doctrine, not by watering it down (because being “radical” is their trademark) but in that they wish to be portrayed as extremely devout, utterly dedicated yadda yadda, and hope to be accepted on terms of their “extreme devotion”, - the extremity of their bizarre devotion obviously, according to Jimmy C, “shames his own students”…. It cracks me up when some of JC’s comments almost seem to exude a kind of awe, like, “you’re so wacko you must have some mystical truth to you”. Even the way TF respond to the Jesus-masturbation questions his students pose, the same way the crazy TF FGA’s always respond, the way we’ve all seen crazy “uncles” and “aunties” talk, with that no-questions-about-it “conviction”. - Because that’s just it, its not “conviction” based on asking themselves deep and searching questions and drawing conclusions, its about accepting a dumb answer which says swallow this and never question. They can’t question, and especially not this far down the track, they wouldn’t even know how, and if they did it would probably tear them apart with disillusionment, confusion and guilt, and by now their own body knows its too late and it would kill them to start thinking about how absolutely nuts they are. By now for most FGA’s I would imagine their fantasy related mental problems are pathological - but no Jimminny C, there’s nothing “mystical”, “spiritual”, or “devout” about it. The only thing TF FGA’s have ever been “devout” about is their individual sexual organs!!! Lastly, I have to ask, how fair a go are we ever going to expect from someone like this guy JC, when even the interviewer in the Cornerstone article credits TF for “bringing him to Jesus” (or was that bringing Jesus to him??) …(reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 09:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Your post got me thinking about an ML (#182) written in 1972 when COG/TFI was opening up homes in European (Catholic) countries. If you're inclined to masochistic intellectual exercises, check out "Are We Catholics or Protestants" in the exfamily archives. This is where the pre-Father David holds forth on the similarities between Family communes and Catholic religious communities. The leadership cadre of TFI is something that I'd expect a good evangelical like Chancellor to absolutely abhor. He appears to recognize the problems that attend a prophetic/charismatic leader--this is, after all, a great weakness of the Mormons and there is a fair amount of research on the cult of religious personalities that would apply to Berg & Zerb. What I think Chancellor completely misses, however, is the whole "priestly caste" culture of the leadership elites--something that should absolutely rankle his evangelical, "priesthood of the believer" bones to the core. Point is, he seems to see all Family disciples as equal, and fails to observe the ways in which people like Claire and Marc function as members of a leadership cult operating within the larger cult. Perhaps Chancellor HAS made observations about TFI's caste system and concluded it is an inconsequential group dynamic. I am at a loss to understand how someone who has spent as many hours in diverse Family homes as Chancellor would neglect to report this essential group characteristic in his book. He just doesn't appear to understand the leadership cult and how these elite members function at a level of priviledge and impunity that is different from than that of ordinary Family disciples. I make a point of this because I think careful analysis of the leadership cult surrounding Zerb and Peter is critical to understanding the widely variable patterns of abuse over time as well as the skepticism and frustration of abuse survivors who have left the group. I am skeptical about how "fair a go" one should expect from a middle-aged evangelical. People of that persuasion are not widely recognized for their intellectual honesty or open-minded curiosity. He likes to pontificate and seems to be genuinely taken by the zeal and devotion of TFI disciples. No doubt that's also what attracts him to study the Islamicists? It takes a heck of a lot of fanatical zeal & mystical devotion to blow yourself up for Allah. His predilection to put that into the "spiritual" category rather than the "just plain nutz" category is problematic, as you so brilliantly observed.(reply to this comment)

From Big Sister Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 11:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I think the subject of caste or class within TF should be studied more, discussed more. It is a method of social control that pervades the organization; one that perpetuates a spiritual and social grandiosity that many members (the original joiners) find attractive and the second generation of higher caste members buy into. Recently I have tried posting on blogs run by several high caste second generation current Family members, describing some of my observations of Family life in a lower caste household. I write what I observe when I visit my sisters Family Home or what she and her children tell me on the phone: a house with a big TV but no books, not even one picture or decoration on the wall, bedrooms with just mattresses on the floor, clothes piled inside the closet, disorganized parents who run out of food and money, the broken-down cars with no insurance, little ones riding around with no car seats or seatbelts, clowning to scrap together the rent, food stamps, welfare, and the kids singing at the mall for grocery money. All this while the adults in the home are trying to "make it" in the cult hierarchy. It is interesting to track how fast my lower caste descriptions are removed from the higher caste web sites. (reply to this comment)

From anovagrrl Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 16:55 (Agree/Disagree?) "Making it in the cult hierarchy" is something I've always been curious about, going back to my 18 month tenure as a recruit between 1972-74. There was all this endless blather about "leaders" in the MLs that made me wonder, "Who the heck are these people?" Coming from a military background, I'm acutely sensitive to nuances of class & caste. Berg modeled TF on the military hierarchy and culture of submission to authority in a chain of command, which is why the group felt like "home" to me at the time. (Fortunately, I was more interested in leaving "home" than sticking around in a remodeled version of it.) A current, poignant reminder of the caste system came up in a recent post at newdaynews, where a young adult raised in IRF homes talks about trying to figure out his wacko, choatic childhood. Makes for interesting sociological reading. I recently ran across an account of a Berg family reunion (Eve, Faith, Deborah, Hosea) in the early 2000s where someone remarked that it was "fun" to get together on equal footing with members of the "royal family" without any posturing over the titles Berg had invented for his upper-echelon leaders. There are early letters to the royal family and other pre-RNR leadership where Berg lectures the leadership cadre on maintaining their station and place by recognizing the dangers of crossing social lines to "fraternize" (get in bed with) their inferiors in rank. In one of her analyses of TFI culture, Jules has pointed out the only tried-and-true, sure-fire way to rise through the hierarchy: people pretty much sleep their way to the top. That's why I think a study of the leadership cadre is so important. I believe there's a very good probability that as one moves up through the hierarchy, an increasingly greater number of people will have a history of molesting children and/or raping minors. From everything I've read, adult/child sex appears to be a signficant rite of passage into the leadership elite. The fact that the Charter forbids it as an excommunicatable offense suggests to me that adult/child sex is now a priviledge reserved only for the elites, TFI's most "spiritually advanced" members. When I put Zerby's 1993 Summit Jewels on the subject into that context...well, I'm not completely convinced that the Charter truly protects a 14-year-old Missionary Member in B.F.E. from the groping hands and stinky breath of Uncle CRO Wannabe.(reply to this comment)

From Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 07:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Benz, you are dead right in your comment: "Much of TF's actions, reactions, revolutions and whathaveyous can be easily reframed in the context of a rebellious child seeing how long they can throw a tantrum, in this case indefinitely. - However they never lose the elemental thought of "the parent"." This indefinite tantrum can be analyzed into individual reactions and revolutions, as you called them. If The Family had not come so close to bearing the consequences of various experiments they played out on their children, I believe certain of those phases of the tantrum would have gone on for longer. If only more of the Family's "sheep" had realized before they gave their lives in that awe that I saw so many times growing up, but no, they fell into the fallacy you have brilliantly identified: “you’re so wacko you must have some mystical truth to you”. (reply to this comment)

From Competitive Spirit Monday, August 22, 2005, 10:28 (Agree/Disagree?) In 1993 the LA Times quoted a Mo Letter showing Berg felt his results were superior to Billy Graham's: "He also suggested that parents masturbate their young boys at bedtime and instructed female followers how to lure men into the group: "Tease him, flirt with him, then screw him until he drops over," Berg was quoted as saying. The practice, known within the group as "flirty-fishing," worked so well, Berg said, that when he compared the number of hours it took to save a soul through sex versus the number of man hours per convert at a Billy Graham crusade, he boasted: "We spent one-sixth the time per soul!""(reply to this comment)

From More Jimmy Jewels Monday, August 22, 2005, 07:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Is it just me, or does it seem a little odd that someone who is supposedly a scholar of "Islamic Culture" (PLUS New Religious Movements) seems to ignore the pitfalls of total dedication, and how undesirable can be the effects of its translation into action on a wider, mostly innocent society that is not totally dedicated to the same thing? I have read most if not all his book, and another skill this "scholar" lacks in is the putting of two and two together. I can't imagine him being a good researcher. I do a lot of research in my job (for which I am billed out at $400 an hour, and the results of which people rely on for big decisions -- so I am doing something of quality). Reserachers have to follow clues. To follow a clue, you have to see a clue when it appears. Clues do not always appear in clues' clothing, jumping out and inviting you to follow them. Chancellor highlights in his book the Family CEO noting how the group changes "on a dime." Given the paths they cleared in the jungle of sexual exploitation of minors, can Chancellor be in his right mind when he asserts that The Family is now abuse-free, when they have such a proclivity to "revolutions" back and forth? Has he ever stopped to wonder what the experience, not the most common in this society, of (1) perpetrating, then (2) getting away with, and (3) even being lionized (as in Chancellor's book) for (4) revictimizing their victims of, child sex abuse -- did to the mind and spirit of his key informants Lonnie Davis and Claire Borowik? Is it not terrifying that a group that boldly went where no law-abiding citizens have gone before but then said they backtracked, but not retroactively (i.e., people "found to have abused children after 1988" are not even excommunicated) is also one that changes on a dime? A dime is a tiny coin! Another thing I find offensive is his idea that what we need is more guess what -- WITNESSING: "How do you think evangelical Christians should interact with the Family/COG? That is a tough one. The Family as a whole sees the “system Church” as weak, much talk and little action, and generally lacking the conviction and dedication necessary to face the coming End. On the other hand, the Family is more sensitive than ever to the concerns of what they consider to be fellow believers. I think there is not really much that evangelicals can “do with” the Family. However, there is an area where effective ministry could be done, and should be done. Hundreds of young people have left the Family, often set adrift in a world that is alien to them. Some of them do quite well, and Family life in some ways does prepare a person to “make it” in the world. But others struggle greatly. I believe there is a real potential for ministry here. And if it were done with the right approach and attitude, it might well be possible to get at least tacit assistance from the Family in meeting this need."(reply to this comment)

From IMHO Monday, August 22, 2005, 19:16 (Agree/Disagree?) It's obvious now why he's hostile to Jules and MovingOn in general. And why he kisses The Family's ass. He had a grand dream of saving Berg's lost sheep and restoring us to the Evangelical fold. Most of the participants on this site are not religious, and while we aren't all biased against Christians, (Note the treatment of Scientology) we are VERY biased against people witnessing to us in general. We would be a big obstacle to any Evangelical attempt at a "ministry" to the Sga's. ESPECIALLY if this "ministry" had the approval or support of the fucking Family leadership. Thus MovingOn is an obstacle to him, whereas the Family leadership, who he hopes to get "tacit assistance" from, is not. In the meantime he's offering the Family "tacit assistance" in the form of all these bullshit public statements about a subject he knows nothing about (Us). A couple of dumb interviews mean nothing, Sga's rarely confided in adults, and almost NEVER with Systemites. I mean think about it, back to when we were in the Cult, okay? Here's what happened: a Family SGA sat down to talk with an important friend of The Family leadership, in a meeting arranged by leadership, and James Chancellor thinks the results of that canned conversation actually have any merit, and worse, are more reliable than what we have to say here. (reply to this comment)

From dejavualloveragain Monday, August 22, 2005, 20:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Suggesting that his fellow evangelicals troll among those who struggle greatly! Their own CTP - Consider the Poorheathencultbabies. Jiminy Chancellormas!(reply to this comment)

From FreeYourMind Monday, August 22, 2005, 18:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Alright, now I'm mad.(reply to this comment)

From Big Sister Monday, August 22, 2005, 13:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Is that so? Are people raised in the Family hungry for "effective ministry"? Or is Chancellor confusing them with the first generation cult ex-members who are still looking for another cult to join.(reply to this comment)

From tuneman7 Saturday, August 20, 2005, 15:13 (Agree/Disagree?) True that. ... true that.(reply to this comment)

from Ralph Crayon Saturday, August 20, 2005 - 10:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Chancellor, your'e not even a man. (reply to this comment)

From Ralph Crayon Sunday, August 21, 2005, 05:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Informing Our Children of the System's Dangers and Perversions: GN 429 - Sara Davidito: “Our teens & preteens should also definitely be aware of the fact that even the slightest inadvertent or unintentional indication from them that they have had any kind of sexual experience at all with their parents or any other adults in the Family, could possibly mean their permanent separation from the Family, & them being institutionalised!” (33) (reply to this comment)

From Ralph Crayon Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 02:49 (Agree/Disagree?) The point I was trying to make was that TF has the most obvious multi layered deception system going on. I say obvious, its obvious if you actually read the pubs and do a bit of research, the contradictions are so many and so glaring..heres another one: ML 2819 What Next? “I think this whole child abuse thing has been cooked up, fomented & aggravated by the Devil just to get at us & other Christians (90) . . . As far as I’m concerned, we’re only guilty of the publication of the Truth, the saving of souls & doing the Lord’s work! (108) That’s from November 1992. Take a WILD guess what the Leadership that you speak with so often actually believes, if the only authority they respect and desperately follow declares that the devil made this whole "child abuse thing" up. I really hope you don’t have Children Chancellor; I would be ashamed to have you as my father. History will remember you as an incompetent academic used as a pawn in a game you didn’t understand. (reply to this comment)

From Ralph Crayon Tuesday, August 23, 2005, 02:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Whats his email address? (reply to this comment)

From Disturbing Reality Monday, August 22, 2005, 08:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Is this a recent GN? (reply to this comment)