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

from murasaki Wednesday, October 08, 2008 - 17:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm pretty sure they didn't make it an excommunicable offense till later, maybe 1988 or so. I do remember when they published the response to the James Penn letter a while back that the dates were mixed up, in some places they said 1988 and in some 1986. If I remember correctly, in 1986 as a response to the feedback they got from the teen camps of all the young girls saying that, "no we don't enjoy sex with older men", that they strongly discouraged it. I don't believe it was banned at this time, that came later, possibly 1988 or 1989. I think they may have used the earlier date in a court case or previous media release, and now they don't want to go back on that. Might be why you're not getting ur answer. (reply to this comment)

from cheeks Tuesday, October 07, 2008 - 21:04 (Agree/Disagree?) The Family still has not gotten back to me. I never though they would. Still it is a little disheartening that while they speak about mending fences they are not even willing to come to the fence and have a chat. I also am saddened by the overwhelming ignorance on this site. It is exhausting to come here and have to wade through the garbage that has littered what was once a great place to meet your peers. Very few of my peers still come here. More and more often it seems this site has been taken over by idiots who don't know when to shut their mouth to stop the verbal diarrhea. (reply to this comment)

From Randi Wednesday, October 08, 2008, 01:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Cheeks, why do you think that TF will dare to have a chat? Its a far too ambitious wish. Its just not gonna happen. Even if they did, what difference would it make? You should think of them as handicaped people, its a lot easier that way. They just dont have the brains to rationlize, to feel sorry, to contemplate the consequences of their wrong doings (or what they call mistakes), or at least they do not have the will, courage or honour to do so. Its a lost cause and not worth spending one second more of your precious time on. There is no hope for some people, like serial killers or psychopaths... they just don't learn and that is what is happening here. Religion has fried their brains and they have relinquished their human (parental etc etc) instincts to an ideology. Its hard to work with that. They are the victims now... Not us.  I am afraid that most of the crap on here now is from new comers, from some young people who have just left and who have just discovered the freedom of speech so they are acting stupid, just saying things for the sake of being heard. As you said diarrhea, some of them havent had the chance to use the toilet for, well their whole lives, so its exciting to swear and act like a total psycho. Hopefully they will find a balance. I also think its sad that this could be a good blogging place for some discussion and a place to find people with the same challanges etc, but I dont feel like I have too much in common with hardly any at the moment. I guess its not the past that determines much at all when it comes to bonding.(reply to this comment)

From cheeks Wednesday, October 08, 2008, 11:46 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree that it was too ambitious, I never actually thought it would happen. I didn't so much want the letter for me, as I wanted it for the SGA's in the Family, and Second Generation Teenagers and children, and of course the Media. This is the tail they pin on the donkey every time they speak to the Media. I am sure that most of the SGA's in the Family believe that it existed. The Family talks a lot about mending Fences. The reality is they have never had that intention. They want to stop the negative press so they can continue to live in their delusions. I cannot think of them as handicapped or mentally challenged. Disabled people have a great capacity for empathy and compassion. Those things were never shown to us as children. I am not sure why I continue to pursue this issue. I think I just want to hear them to say, "We did it. We condoned it, we allowed it, and we told them to do it." Instead of calling us liars and apostates. My turning point was the Vandari Letter. When they would rather say we were filled with demons than admit fault, that is what made me join the Vandari club, and here I am. (reply to this comment)

From Randi Thursday, October 09, 2008, 02:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I know what you mean... I have felt the same, but I dont really think about it anymore. They are below that kind of conduct. It would have been nice to recieve some apologies from the freaks in ASCRO who tormented, tortured, deprived us of medical care etc and humiliated me and my friends. Who put us through hell...but I just know that they have no honour... they dont care enough to write me personally and admit to the crimes (not mistakes) they did. Its just not human to do those things in the first place, so what would now make them human enough to have a chat and admit to wrong doing? I am also amazed with how they called us liars and apostates etc and tried to vilinize us. But that is how abusers react to their victims, proving that they're abusers. And the world can see that!! They have succeeded in making themselves look much worse than they they would have had they had a different attitude. If a parent beats and sexually abuses their children, makes them work, deprives them of education and med care puts them into concentration camp style programs etc... and then later when the children are angry about it and demand justice... the parents respond by calling them liars and evil children... well their just that much worse!!! They have painted themselves black...they dont realize that they're doing all the work for us.(reply to this comment)

From chaos* Thursday, October 09, 2008, 01:19 (Agree/Disagree?) The cult was built on lies and it continues to live and breathe on lies. Berg himself said it, though he was talking about Hilter, "If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one. Then people will believe you because they can't imagine you'd tell such a big lie." They have lost the ability to think and are hopelessly clinging to the feeling of "unity" they get from their victim complex. Everything that is not one hundred percent positive or in their favor is indiscriminately classified as "persecution", thus feeding the cycle. Everytime we say something, they are being "persecuted". When someone finally breaks free, they are again being "persecuted". By continuing to attack them, we are, in their eyes, proving them right. Then gradually as the circle becomes smaller and smaller, the "bond" gets stronger and stronger as the proof is more and more abundant. This is the way the the cult was built. This is the structure that is still being preserved in earnest. This will never change. Finally though, the knowledge that we will never receive our "recognition" or "closure", does not stop us from desiring or needing it. For many of us our time in the cult makes up more than half our lives, and at best, our most delicate and vulnerable years. We are inseparable from the events and experiences that have stamped themselves into our personalities, thought patterns and memories. There is no justice for us, and so there will be no forgiveness for them. We want an admission. They will NEVER admit it. We STILL want an admission. - As sad as it is, this is the reality I've had to accept. I mean, what else is left?(reply to this comment)

From Randi Wednesday, October 08, 2008, 01:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, when I said handicaped, I meant the severly retarded or sociapaths and the like... sorry if I offended anyone(reply to this comment)

from AndyH Thursday, September 18, 2008 - 15:24 (Agree/Disagree?) You wont get it, because it doesn't exist. This is the publication which they boast as having banned adult child sex, and it says nothing about excommunication. http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Liberty_or_Stumbling_Block (reply to this comment)

From cheeks Friday, September 19, 2008, 11:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I know it does not exist. I want them to publish it or to retract their statements saying it does. If they had truly published such an article I want to see it. The fact of the matter is no such letter was ever written. I is a complete fabrication, a complete lie. Yet this is what the Family basis all of it's media dealing on. How many times have we heard of or read about this letter. I want to see. The Family needs to stop playing games with us and get to the facts.(reply to this comment)

From Peter Friday, September 19, 2008, 07:11 (Agree/Disagree?) They did not unequivocally ban raping children in "Liberty or Stumblingblock" but only "strongly discouraged" it. There is nothing whatsoever in it that states that raping children is prohibited. Instead, it states that it would be "preferable" for adult members to not rape children: "it is preferable that they not indulge in sex with older adults; it's even strongly discouraged for the reasons already given above." Before that part, they make liberal use of the word "should" rather than using strong language making it clear that raping children is absolutely prohibited. In case the reader has any doubts about what they mean when they use words like "should," they then make it clear that raping children is merely something that is "strongly discouraged." If one looks at earlier Family publications and Mo Letters regarding Family rules and policies, one will find that they contain much stronger language regarding and clear prohibitions on behavior such as eating white sugar, sunbathing, looking like a hippie, using "too much" toilet paper and so on. The only reason we have a written record of what The Family refers to as its "stringent policies for the protection of minors" is that a Family member disobeyed the explicit instructions to immediately burn the "Liberty or Stumblingblock" memo after reading it. There is not a shred of evidence that The Family banned raping children in November 1986 as they now claim. One of the key features of their child molester protection policy is not excommunicating those who raped children before the date on which they claim to have enacted a policy mandating excommunication for the rape of children. They now claim they enacted this policy in July 1989 although they have previously claimed it was enacted in other years including 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. Many people believe that it is incredibly dangerous, risky and highly irresponsible to allow those who have raped children to have access to children and to be in leadership positions where they have authority over and responsibility for the welfare of children. The Family International clearly either disagrees or simply does not care. Over the years, spokespersons for The Family International have claimed that the cult has adopted a policy mandating the "excommunication" of any adult Family found to have sexually abused a child by having sexual contact with a child. While it is unfortunate the forms of child sexual abuse that do not involve adult-child sexual contact are completely excluded from this policy, those who are unaware of the extraordinary deception practiced by this cult and its spokespersons and the lengths they will go to protect child molesters might be forgiven for thinking that this is a step in the right direction and that The Family International has made a commitment to protect its children by expelling every adult member who it knows has raped a child. However, a lengthy October 2007 series of "Mo Letters" ("The Family's History, Policies, and Beliefs Regarding Sex, " ML 3671-3673, GN 1234-1236) by top cult leader and child molester Steven Douglas Kelly (aka "Peter Amsterdam" and "Christopher Smith") that was published and distributed to members in December 2007 makes it clear that The Family International has no intention of ever expelling any of its members who raped children before July 1989. In this publication series, it was made clear that the excommunication policy was not applied to those who raped children before July 1989: -quote- 60. (Question:) How were cases of sexual interaction with minors handled that occurred before the excommunication policy was announced in 1989? Was this policy applied retroactively? 61. As I explained in the second GN of this series, infractions of the 1986 notice disallowing sexual interaction between adults and minors became excommunicable in 1989... 62. When the list of excommunicable offenses was published in July 1989 (see ML #2531, Vol. 19), there were 22 offenses which could result in excommunication, depending on the gravity of the offense. These were not published so as to apply them retroactively... Source: Family's History, Policies, and Beliefs Regarding Sex, The—Part 3 GN 1236 FD/MM/FM 3673 10/07 [Published/distributed December 2007] http://archive.xfamily.org/docs/fam/gn/gn-1236.htm -end quote- Family leader and child molester Steven Douglas Kelly went on to offer a lengthy justification of The Family's policy of not excommunicating those who raped children before July 1989. Here are some excerpts: -quote- 64. Once it was announced to the Family that any sort of sexual interaction with minors would result in excommunication, this became the Family's "law‚" and infractions were dealt with accordingly. You may wonder why we didn't focus our efforts on investigating past incidences of sexual interaction with minors and seek to excommunicate any individual that had acted on the understood allowance for this in some of the pubs. [...] 67. As a second point, there are many precedents in history of societies that made moral turnarounds on issues, and created laws that were opposite to the preexisting cultural understanding and norms. It often took people quite some time to adjust their perspectives when such change represented a radical departure from the previously accepted status quo. In implementing these changes and creating new laws, the government did not penalize people for the preexisting behaviors and norms. [...] 70. Could the government of that day, in all fairness, go back in time and seek to penalize those who had been operating within the accepted moral code of their day? Once laws were enacted, those who had previously discriminated against African Americans, and enforced segregation laws, now had to abide by the new laws that mandated the exact opposite. If they repeated their former actions, they could be penalized according to the law, though it even took some time for the attitude of the courts to change in many parts of the country. But the courts generally could not go backwards in time and penalize those who had been technically operating according to the laws and morally accepted code of behavior of their day, even though those laws and behaviors were clearly wrong. 71. Courts very rarely apply laws retroactively, as it's generally deemed unfair to judge individuals by incidents and actions that occurred during a different moral and legal clime by the yardstick of the present laws and norms. It's not possible to qualify every instance of the past based on the context of the present or new legislation. Similarly, it was not possible for the Family to revisit every case that had occurred before our policies were in place‚ and attempt to judge those situations based on the legislation enacted in 1989. 72. In making this comparison between the moral turnaround the Family experienced on the issue of sexuality and minors, and similar ones that have occurred throughout history, it's important to bear in mind that we were a culture dropped out of the System‚ and for the most part, we followed the laws that the Lord and Dad had laid down, and considered those to be the guiding force of the Family. Source: Family's History, Policies, and Beliefs Regarding Sex, The—Part 3 GN 1236 FD/MM/FM 3673 10/07 [Published/distributed December 2007] http://archive.xfamily.org/docs/fam/gn/gn-1236.htm -end quote- In the aforementioned 3-part publication series, Family leader and child molester Steven Douglas Kelly went on to explain that most Family members who raped children before July 1989 were “most likely acting in good faith” but acknowledged that there may have been a few child rapists in The Family who “not operating in good faith:” -quote- 131. As SGAs, you need to understand that any FGAs in the Family today who had sexual contact with a minor back in the late 1970s or early to mid-1980s were most likely acting in good faith. They had no intention of causing you harm. For the most part, in the absence of Dad's writings they would have never taken part in such interaction. And once it was banned‚ they completely discontinued interaction of this nature and supported and upheld our strong policies against it. 132. There may have been a few FGAs who were not operating in good faith, and whose actions clearly contravened the guidelines of the Law of Love in place at that time. The sexually liberal climate of the Family during that era may have unwittingly given access to minors to such individuals who acted abusively, and their actions were harmful and coercive. Such actions were never condoned or given allowance for under any circumstances in the Law of Love at any period of the Family‚ and were a direct contravention of everything that Dad taught us about loving and caring for others. Mama and I sincerely apologize to any who suffered due to the lack of safeguards to protect you from such harm. We are confident that the excommunication policies enacted in 1989 were successful in expelling any such individuals from the Family many years ago. Source: Family's History, Policies, and Beliefs Regarding Sex, The—Part 3 GN 1236 FD/MM/FM 3673 10/07 [Published/distributed December 2007] http://archive.xfamily.org/docs/fam/gn/gn-1236.htm -end quote- In making a distinction between two types of child rapists (those who raped children in “good faith” and those who raped children in “bad faith”) and only defining one type of child rapist as acting ”abusively” Kelly makes it clear that he, like most pedophiles, does not understand that raping children is abusive and harmful regardless of the intentions of the rapist. Because, according to The Family International, the “excommunication policies enacted in 1989” excluded those who raped children before July 1989, it is simply impossible for them to have been “successful in expelling any such individuals.” (reply to this comment)

From katrim4 Friday, September 19, 2008, 12:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow! Talk about "If I justify myself my own mouth will condemn me". It is beyond me that any current adult member can read that and not immediately realize who/what they are supporting and do something about it. It still amazes me that these people will look you straight in the face and tell you that there was no istitutionalized abuse. Of course most of them can't make it in regular society anymore anyway so they may as well stay put and live out their dying days in misery and not bother the rest of us with it.(reply to this comment)