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

from challenger Friday, January 21, 2005 - 08:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Good going Lauren. (reply to this comment)

from Unsatisfied Monday, August 04, 2003 - 02:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Although I generally don’t post on this site, a chance to psycho-analyse and comment on this “letter” from Claire Borowick just seemed too precious to pass up. I’ll just have to quote and commentate here: “It does seem to us, however, that there are some undertones to your letter that are out of touch with the reality of life in the Family.” It seems they are eager to try and apply the “brush” they’ve been tarred with themselves in an effort to discredit their own children who speak against them. – Who is out of touch with reality, they seem to ask. - It wouldn’t possibly be members of an apocalyptic cult of which thousands can attest practice and teach down right harmful and destructive ideas and who have proven they will go to great ends to try and influence their children’s minds to accepting their version of “truth”. – No, no, no, it must be those who are telling such despicable tales of life and their childhood in “The Family” that one could only assume that the stories are nothing more than a product of exaggerated, fanciful, childhood imagination, right? No Claire, you may not say: “These misconceptions are probably due to a lack of awareness of Family policy, officially in place since the advent of the Charter in 1995, and also articulated in great detail throughout Letters circulated to Family members.” I did not leave your precious fellowship of fruit-cakes (also known as “The Family”, “Children of God”, “The Family of Love” etc), until 1998, which I consider unfortunate except for that I may respond to this point. – In particular discussing the issue of whether “The Family” assists those who want to leave. – I personally don’t know of anyone who was “assisted” in any significant way by “The Family”, when deciding to leave your group. Perhaps if you consider purchasing a one-way bus or train ticket to the nearest busking spot “assistance” for someone this could start to explain “misconceptions” you allege people (specifically ex-members) have about “assistance” provided by your group. Claire refers to SPF as “a responsible institution seeking to mentor others”. As I am sure she holds “The Family” (and consequently herself) in at least as high regard I assume it would be reasonable to expect Claire considers them (The Family) as well to be “a responsible institution seeking to mentor others”. It would seem reasonable therefore to expect that she provide a detailed explanation of exactly what their procedure is for “assisting” persons who wish to leave “The Family to pursue a secular lifestyle. My request to Claire is please do so, in all truth it will assist in making a part of “The Family’s” practices at least somewhat more transparent and will help us all know what actual “assistance” or “benefits” one can expect to receive when they decide to leave the group and join “greater society”. – We can also try and ensure “The Family” (or perhaps have the courts) ENFORCE any procedure or benefit scheme they state to have for assisting those who want to leave and join greater society. Apart from Claire Borowicks comments it is genuinely amusing how we have these smarmy smart-alex’s who think they have the “legal” angle on why “The Family” isn’t doing anything “criminal”, and why we should respect their group on the grounds of “freedom of religion”. – Tell me what right does a group like “The Family” have to insist on “Freedom of Religion” when our entire childhood we were in many cases physically punished for such things as “doubting”, expected to memorise not just extensive portions of the Bible, but in many cases entire “Mo letters”, or “MOP” quotes etc. They were forcing a way of thinking into our heads. Probably the strangest thing about all that, thinking back, is realising I actually had myself thinking I enjoyed memorising all that shit purely out of childish competition. It amazes me what methods “The Family” employed throughout our childhood to get us doing what they wanted. Continuing in her 3rd paragraph she states “it would behove you to begin by clearly stating that the first course of action for any younger second generation member intent on making a radical change in their life-style, career and country of residency would be to contact (if they don’t reside with them) and counsel with their parents, whether these are in the Family or not”. I wonder where this wonderful advice was when our own parents ran away (most between the ages of 15 – 25) from home to join “The Family”. WE KNOW for a fact that they viewed (view) their own parents “the evil system”, as we were indoctrinated with this same hatred in many cases. Whether or not some of us had more or less contact with our grandparents there is no disputing that “The Family” explicitly discouraged contact with “system” or “outside”, “worldly” family members. Further down Claire’s letter says: “Anyone of legal age is free to leave the Family at any time they wish. No one is forced to remain. In fact, if anyone wants to go, then we want and encourage he or she to do so. We are not in the business of trying to coerce anyone to remain in the Family who desires otherwise; on the contrary, we are a Gideon’s Band and only those who want to be here should be.” - But do they educate their children on the possibility of having a “fulfilling” life outside of “The Family”? – Not that I’m aware of! – And isn’t it very noticeable how they expect ex-members to feel like “guilty backsliders”? – If a child has been brought up their entire life with this kind of slant on right & wrong, personal satisfaction or achievement etc, isn’t it little wonder that many “sincere” people in it don’t need to be coerced into staying? - It’s their own guilt being played on to keep them there (though “The Family” prefers to call this your “conscience” or “feeling convicted”, but use the word “guilty”, or “afraid” which is what it really is & watch them retort). Without wishing to draw too much further on my completely unsatisfied attitude toward Claire’s full-of-holes condescending letter to the SPF, I’ll just add my remark to a few more of her comments: “Most psychologists of religion that we have interacted with agree that it is much healthier for individuals to cull the benefits and growth of their experiences in life while learning from what they consider to be negative aspects.”- Having not detailed who she may be referring to nor the context of what she is alleging has been said may we assume that these same “psychologists of religion” are the same kinds of “experts” who think that the church should rule the state, or who think that the Catholic Church should not be held accountable as a group or organisation for child abuse which occurred by its members. I wonder what jurisdiction a “psychologist of religion” would have over someone who is an atheist, or what right they have to speak of what may or may not be beneficial to them. – Personally I think it would be far more beneficial to address the issues which “The Family” have done wrong and win restitution for wrong doings committed against us. As for “culling benefits”, well, leave that to the individual, it certainly shouldn’t be anything Claire should be advising to people. – What a smug disgusting, inhumane attitude she has. One last portion of Claire’s letter to comment on: "In order to embrace the System to the degree you espouse, one has to ignore the evils of poverty, injustice, prejudice, inequality of wealth and corruption from which so many suffer. Not to mention the exploitation of developing nations; politically-motivated wars that take the lives of millions while devastating the economy and agriculture; pollution and the extravagant depletion of natural resources by wealthy nations at the expense of the poor, and the list goes on. One could infer by reading your post that the greatest conceivable moral evil would be that someone be raised in a religious community and that their parents respect and trust the leadership they believe God had appointed to help minister to their church. (Is this essentially any different than any other church or mosque or temple?)" - I love this paragraph, it seems symbolic of a way “The Family” seem to want to portray themselves as a genuine “NRM”. Firstly, what is “The System”? – Anything outside of “The Family”? – To repeat what Claire has just said “In order to embrace the System to the degree you espouse, one has to ignore the evils of poverty, injustice, prejudice, inequality of wealth and corruption from which so many suffer.”- WTF? – Someone please tell me how Lauren as a representative of SPF is ignoring “the evils of poverty, injustice, prejudice, inequality of wealth and corruption from which so many suffer”. – Isn’t that the entire point of SPF to help ex-Family members escape “the evils of poverty, injustice, prejudice, inequality of wealth and corruption from which so many suffer”, at least relieve it somewhat for those who are in fact left destitute both physically and mentally from this cult? Finally the portion where Claire says “(Is this essentially any different than any other church or mosque or temple?)” – That question is essentially too ridiculous to even begin responding to! (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 10:49 (Agree/Disagree?) you've saved me a lot of typing there mate, thanks, this comment rules. (reply to this comment)

from juniper Saturday, August 02, 2003 - 06:57 (Agree/Disagree?) My answer to Claire? Me thinks thou protests too much! (reply to this comment)

from porceleindoll Friday, August 01, 2003 - 22:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Claire writes (remember, she has stated that the Family has made major changes since the Charter came out): "The scenario implied in your letter as to the need to attempt to locate relatives or “tell the embassy of their predicament” would seem to imply that a) second generation members opting to leave the Family from Brazil during this time of probation will be somehow prevented from doing so When my 17 year old sister announced she was leaving the group she was automatically ostracized from everyone, including our younger sister, taking time to 'pray' about her choice. This was a few months after the Charter came out. b) they will not be assisted in anyway, so must “borrow” money from the Embassy by telling them that they have some sort of emergency When my youngest sister left the group, about 6 years ago, a few years AFTER the Charter came out, she walked out the door $3,000 in debt, with no assistance from the Family. In the mid-90s my husband and I took in young family teens (ages 16~17) who wanted a different lifestyle, we got no assistance from their parents nor the Family for this, and the teens had to find jobs in order to pay for rent, food and other. They were 'assisted' with a ticket to our house. c) will have to contact relatives without the assistance of their parents, who, by inference, would know nothing of the important change in their life or take part in assisting them, contacting relatives where necessary or even accompanying them to get them established, as do most parents When my sister Bella left the group, noone bothered to inform my father who was still in the group and he found out after the fact. Noone helped her or our younger sister to get in touch with our mother, or to send her back to our mother, leaving both of them to fend for themselves in a society they had no clue about. d) they would not be able to simply raise funds or get a temporary job to raise the amount needed to fly to the country of their choice (which second generation members in the Family are highly adept at doing), if they don’t already have sufficient funds of their own to do so." Due to lacks in education and knowledge of 'real world' work, I have personally witnessed many many young people who have gone straight into hostessing at bars, stripping, bartending, night work, or construction work, simply because these were the only jobs they could get that would pay the amount they needed to support themselves, a job which the parents should have been taking care of. All of this AFTER the Charter came out with it's supposed improved greatness. I also find Claire's harping on the fact that parents should be contacted first by departing young people quite hilarious. Here's the reason: When our parents joined the group as young adults they dropped all contact with our grandparents and pretty much considered it almost backsliding to be in touch with their parents. How many of us were raised with 'grandparents' whom we knew, loved, stayed with, visited, and were allowed to be 'grandchildren' around them? How many of us can claim that our parents informed their parents of their moved and major changes in their lives? Strikes me as rather hypocritical. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, August 01, 2003, 22:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey doll, I agree with your comment, except for the bit about grandparents. Maybe I was an exception, but I knew my grandparents from an early age, they always sent presents, I met one pair at age 6 and my other grandma at age 10. Not that takes away from your point, but you should know that not everyone's parents had nasty fallings out with their parents due to joining the cult. (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 10:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Just to let you know what's slightly more normal for Grandparents, my wife's parents see their grandchild most weeks, the other set (wife's parents divorced and remarried) who live 500 miles away see him every few months, this is perfectly normal, meeting one pair at age 6 and the other at age 10 would hardly be considered a strong loving bond with your grandparents such as many, if not most, people outside the family enjoy. It's just possible that this was something of a joke by you, in which case feel free to take the mick. ;) Laters (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 02, 2003, 03:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I was born in my father's hometown, and spent the first 6 years of my life living very close to my grandparents - until our family moved to the East. I have never not had good relations with my grandparents, a fact which they can attest to themselves.(reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Sunday, August 03, 2003, 00:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm glad to know that some of us were able to develop that relationship with our grandparents. After my father rejoined the group when I was 15 we didn't see our mother once in 10 years, the leadership went so far as to confiscate gifts and letters sent to us, my father wrote my mom saying we had no desire to see her, our relationship with both our mother and grandparents was basically halted as the group considered those outside influences detrimental to our lives and spirits. Joe, what about when you were at the HCS, how did you carry on your relationship with your grandparents then? Was it encouraged, discouraged, because that's when our family started getting the most flack for 'contacts with outside relatives', during that whole time period, and it carried on for many years.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Sunday, August 03, 2003, 18:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I remember writing them a letter, in fact you probably proofread it, cause you were my shepherd at the time.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 04, 2003, 03:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Yea, but what she didn't tell you is that she DIDN'T PASS IT ON! She's the one who ended your contact with your grandparents! Nya ha ha! JK, btw! It was too good of an opportunity for sarcasm to pass up.(reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Monday, August 04, 2003, 09:28 (Agree/Disagree?) hahaha! you may be right! but actually, I probably gave it to Joe's parents, so you'd have to find out from them if it ever made it to the grandparents. (reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Monday, August 04, 2003, 09:30 (Agree/Disagree?) and Joe--before you get on my case for the lack of capitals at the beginning of my sentences, just remember, I'm probably the one who originally taught you to capitalize your sentences! (reply to this comment)

From neez Monday, August 04, 2003, 06:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you know what sarcasm means?(reply to this comment)

From neezy Monday, August 04, 2003, 06:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you know what sarcasm means?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 04, 2003, 07:10 (Agree/Disagree?) sar·casm (särkzm) n. 1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound. 2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule. 3. The use of sarcasm (reply to this comment)

From neez Monday, August 04, 2003, 11:48 (Agree/Disagree?) & which of the first 2 definitions do you think your laugh-tastic comment falls under? & no.. the last 1 doesn't count(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 04, 2003, 13:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Good for you, you managed to eliminate one of the options.. all on your own! Actually my comment was intended as somewhat of a combination between the first two definitions, as 'an ironic remark intended to make its victim the butt of ridicule' - hence my disclaimer at the end, since no offence was intended.(reply to this comment)

From neez Monday, August 04, 2003, 20:00 (Agree/Disagree?) It wasn't ironic (time for dictionary.com again). & it didn't make the 'victim' the butt of any ridicule. Sarcasm would be to say something like: 'Dictionary boy here obviously knows what he's talking about.'(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, August 05, 2003, 05:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Just because you don't catch the joke doesn't mean it wasn't funny! It's a known fact that not everyone has the same opinions, or definitions of what is or isn't funny, and what is or isn't ironic. Your example is closer to the American version of humour/sarcasm, whereas mine drew more on the British dry-humour, which the majority of non-Brits (and even many Family-born Brits) that I know don't appreciate in the least - this doesn't make them any better or worse, it just makes us DIFFERENT! I imagine there are a number of things which I like or dislike which you could ridicule, and similarly, I could do the same for you. However, I don't consider that to be a profitable - hence my disclaimer after my initial comment, since my intention was to comment on the irony, not to cause undue ridicule.(reply to this comment)

From neez Tuesday, August 05, 2003, 09:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Is that like the difference between the american tomato & the english tomato? It's all in the definition..? I appreciate good brit dry-humour.. but that wasn't even dry Irony is.. the fact that you're english, yet you(still) don't seem to know the difference between sarcasm, humour, irony, & a bad joke. Even after you've looked it up in the english dictionary.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, August 05, 2003, 15:00 (Agree/Disagree?) The difference I'm talking about is more one of taste, some people appreciate a certain type of humor - or certain jokes - and others don't. I'm not claiming that my comment was the best joke, nor am I saying it was in the best of taste. But I most certainly do see the irony of the situation, which is why I commented on it. The differences between the terms you mentioned is in many cases subjective - particularly the difference between the first 3 and the last one, which is, I believe the one you are using to define my attempt at humour. Well, I can live with you not liking my jokes...(reply to this comment)

From neez Tuesday, August 05, 2003, 18:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Well this is going nowhere fast..(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Tuesday, August 05, 2003, 15:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Ne oublie, your initial joke wasn't sarcasm, it was teasing. Get it straight. Whether or not it was funny has nothing to with neez's response to you.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Wednesday, August 06, 2003, 10:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Fair enough! The lack of malicious intent makes sarcasm somewhat of an extreme term for that comment. Oh, and Neez, just a note to add to your list of non-ironic comments that I've made - I'm NOT English, thank you very much!(reply to this comment)

From neez Thursday, August 07, 2003, 17:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Well then my comment ceases to be ironic.. (you beginning to see how this works??)(reply to this comment)

From Mir Wednesday, August 06, 2003, 07:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I have to agree with Joe here Ne Oublie, I don't think you can get away with palming your comment/joke off as British humour... at least not this time my love! ;-) However, I do agree that it is ironic that Pdoll was Joe's "shepherdess" etc, etc... Now guys, please be nice and get off Ne Oblie's case!(reply to this comment)

From neez Thursday, August 07, 2003, 17:59 (Agree/Disagree?) lol.. Yeah JOE... stop picking on him(reply to this comment)

from Unbelieveable Friday, August 01, 2003 - 07:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Besides the fact that this response is petty and paranoid, I can't get over the fact that they STILL are trying to control us!!!! "You should write this...you should say that...this is what WE think your foundation should do...." WTF?!! Did they start the SPF?! Where they got the nerve to think they can say what the SPF should or shouldn't do or say, I really don't know. Talk about control freaks. They also obviously don't feel that the young people in TF are "strong" enough to handle reading the type of information that the SPF sent to them (which speaks volumes about how flimsy a foundation they must think they are standing on, or else why would something so simple and basic throw their young people off?) These kind of things that go on with TF leadership is why I personally am simpathetic to young people who left TF later in life; this is the kind of control that still goes on, and often leaves them clueless as to more options. (reply to this comment)

from moonmental Friday, August 01, 2003 - 04:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't have the time to be reading through Borowicks reply or SPF's. Are they passing on the info about SPF or what??? (reply to this comment)

from Tea Friday, August 01, 2003 - 01:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Is this where our money goes? Is that what our tithes are funding? Did we waste the HER on her? Such complete incompetence… Can’t the family do any better at representing itself than that? Don’t answer. Dealing with these people is like dealing with some of their favorite cult heroes: David Koresh— who mistook ATF commandos for “antichrist soldiers”, Castro— still going on about the everlasting wonders communism, Arafat— still muttering to himself (and to the rest of the world) while his hands are busy and dirty under the table, and Saddam Hussein—hopefully getting his ass kicked by Navy SEALs; or better yet, licking his wounds in hell. She said, “You certainly have your right to your personal secular views; however, as the president of a public foundation with a stated purpose and standard that contrast so sharply from your very public views, the conflict of interests may not be beneficial to your ultimate stated purpose. Your letter to the Family states: “It is our commitment that the beliefs of young people leaving should be respected and not infringed upon nor should any attempt be made to influence their faith or opinion of The Family, whatever it may be.” I hope that the ideals espoused in your letter will indeed be the guiding purpose of your foundation.” Now if only they’d hold their queens to the same standard. (reply to this comment)

from Prisma Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 23:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I know I shouldn’t be surprised by their response but I’m always amazed how they continue to lack any kind of “original” response. It’s as if they use these letters as a tool to “witness” to those that are somewhat sympathetic to their side as well as to “rebuke” us for being so closed-minded and biased. I could point out all sorts of sentences that are completely one-sided but these seemed to have been the most amusing to me. For instance, this quote below should be really be rephrased from: “Most psychologists of religion that we have interacted with agree that it is much healthier for individuals to cull the benefits and growth of their experiences in life while learning from what they consider to be negative aspects.” To: [Most psychologists we have paid and/or slept with] … “agree that it is much healthier for individuals to cull the benefits and growth of their experiences”… And this one is just downright funny: “Your claim that Family members are blind and not enlightened, as you now are, to the wonders and joys of the System seems simplistic at best—-but certainly not in line with what some of the great minds of our day have to say about the moral decay of society .” I wonder who exactly are the “great minds of their day”? (All right, maybe I really don’t want to know) (reply to this comment)

From EyesWideShut Friday, August 01, 2003, 11:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Personally, I thought the funniest part in that sentence was when she used the word "system". She's assuming that the only people involved with SPF are exFamily. It's an official letter to a secular recognized foundation--you don't used do-do speak.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, August 01, 2003, 12:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I assume you mean doo doo?(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Thursday, July 31, 2003, 23:57 (Agree/Disagree?) The so-called "gread minds" who talk about the moral decay of society are usually anything but. They're the small-minded Jerry Falwell types always whining that America is getting worse and worse, yet somehow close their show with God bless America, the land of the free, the greatest country in the world and that kind of crap. And funnily enough, people have been complaining about the moral decay of society ever since its inception, so when was the so-called Golden age of family values? I guarantee you that in 30 years somebody will be ranting about how great the turn of the century was, calling it "a simpler time," an "age of innocence." I am not alone when I call BULLSHIT on these idiot con-artists. The "system" is fucking awesome, and if you don't like it, stay in your fucking cult. Peace! (BTW Prisma, have you seen Sex and Lucia? Awesome movie!)(reply to this comment)

From Mir Friday, August 01, 2003, 07:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe, you hit the nail on the head there. Shit has been going ever since the freaking world began. The only difference now I think is that we get to hear about it because of the media. Sexual abuse of children, ritualistic murders, murders, rapes, robberies and the list goes on and on. The only thing that worries me a little is the fact that sick people can spread their sickness using the internet, and people who might have had deviant tendencies and surpressed/ignored them, might now go ahead and indulge in their perversion because they feel "encouraged" that there are "like minded" people around.(reply to this comment)

From Gar Friday, August 01, 2003, 02:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Amen to that Joe! You crack me up man!!(reply to this comment)

From Prisma Friday, August 01, 2003, 00:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree. Yes, I did see ‘Sex and Lucia’ and I enjoyed the film although, I think it should have been called ‘Sex, Lucia, and more Sex without Lucia’. I personally think that ‘Live Flesh’ was a better film.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, August 01, 2003, 18:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I think the movie maybe could have done with a different title, so as not to give people the wrong idea. Sure, it was about sex, but that wasn't the beauty of it. It was an incredible work of art with an awesome story, probably my favorite film of all time. (reply to this comment)

from neez Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 21:33 (Agree/Disagree?) look who's paranoid.. all this over an offer to help their children out. (reply to this comment)

From Tim R Thursday, July 31, 2003, 22:09 (Agree/Disagree?) No kidding, this article could be titled: "The Hit Dogs Howl".(reply to this comment)

from Wolf Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 16:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with one thing Claire said: “In visiting the Moving On site, it has unfortunately been painfully clear that anyone who is not anti-Family or is remotely positive about any aspect of their life in the Family is immediately ostracized…” My first post on this site was construed as pro-family by some and it immediately reaped a whirlwind of negative comments. Of course I wasn’t offended because I like a good debate, but I have to agree that this is a very anti-family site and it seems most individuals who post here have a lot of hatred for the Family. If anyone’s interested in where I’m coming from on this issue, there are many things I still like about the cult, some good people I know who are still part of it, and I think some of them are doing good. I know several people who were “witnessed” to by members and feel their lives have changed for the better as a result, though they were lucky enough to not join the group. I’m still a Christian and my belief system is still similar to what it was while I was a member, minus some things I consider weird such as physical intimacy with Jesus etc. I’m aware that David Berg was a pervert and that most children who grew up in the group in the 80’s and early 90’s were abused, and I’m very upset about these things, but I don’t let them blot out the many things I think are good. I still have a faint hope that Zerby and Kelly will relinquish their positions and somebody who has a grip on reality will take their place, salvage the good and toss out the bad. The main problem I see is that by then there will be hundreds of old people in the group with no profession, no livelihood and no future except a state-sponsored old folks home, and there will be hundreds of young people with no education who will have to start from scratch and un-learn a lot of weird trash. (reply to this comment)

From poor babe Tuesday, June 26, 2007, 22:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Wolfie, let's start a new article. "Top ten best things I still like about the cult". Your turn.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Friday, August 01, 2003, 12:46 (Agree/Disagree?) I don’t think the fact that people have strong personal views regarding their experiences in the Family makes this web site fundamentally biased one way or another. People have passionate opinions on many issues here and politics, sex and religion, to name a few, are debated fiercely all the time. The key issue is the fact that things can be discussed. Compare this with the Yahoo email group for young people in the Family. They are so worried that they will be stumbled and affected by “anti-Family” discussion, that anything that is not in support of or endorsing their opinions on the Family is censored. From what I understand, the moderators were actually told that the email group would be shut down (not sure how the Family leaders think they can control Yahoo) if “negative” opinions or questions were posted there. That is what I call bias. When topics are raised and discussed in an open, uncensored and public forum, and certain patterns or similarities emerge, then perhaps there is something to what is being said. I think that what people who have recently left, or have friends or family that they are close to in the group object to sometimes is the blanket definition of “The Family” or “the cult”. What does that actually mean? They are not literally the Borg (although after some rather frustrating attempts to have a conversation with certain Family members, the image has come to mind). What I personally believe is that individuals are accountable as individuals for their actions. Being a member of a high demand group and living under the unique pressures of such an environment does not excuse the responsibility an individual has for their own behavior. It also does not give them special licence to disregard the law or give members of the Family leeway to do whatever they can rationalize through some doctrine, and to then yell “persecution, you just hate us”, when they are held accountable for the consequences of those actions. I don’t believe that people who leave the Family are suddenly absolved of all blame, because “the evil Family made me do it”. I’ve actually heard that from FG exmembers and I think that’s despicable. Even we who were raised in the Family are accountable and responsible for our own actions as adults. Contrary to what we have heard so many times, mistakes are not just made all on their own, individual people make them, and "mistake" or not, when the result is that children are hurt, someone is responsible and there must be accountability. It's very strange that Zerby and Kelly have always been so quick to place blame (abuse was "isolated incidents and the fault of individuals"), and yet refuse to demand any accountability for the actions of those individuals, or take responsibility themselves for the "mistakes" they have made. To assume a priori that because a person is a member of a new religious movement, they are immoral or evil is prejudice. However, to say that a parent who read “The Story of Davidito” and decided to raise their own children in the organization that published the photographs of the molestation of a toddler as an example of proper childcare is accountable for the consequences of that choice, is concrete, specific and, IMO, accurate. I wrote my opinion on this ages ago, and some FG exmembers got quite upset over it. http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=21&ID=137 (reply to this comment)

From Mir Friday, August 01, 2003, 08:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh Wolf. I'm so sorry but there is absolutely nothing, repeat, NOTHING good about the COG WHATSOEVER. I also am a Christian, I became one 8 years after leaving the cult, and two verses spring to mind: "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit" I'm sorry mate, but all you have to do is read this website and you will know that you are looking at a trail of destruction left by the group. Where is the good fruit? There is none! And the second verse is in Matthew 7 v 22: "Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in your name?" And then I will declare to them, "I NEVER knew you, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" (I'm sure this verse also applies to some "celebrity" preachers out there as well) What is lawlessness? If you are a Christian and you believe the Bible, read the laws that are there, a glaringly obvious one is "Thou shall not commit adultery" Another thing that is strictly forbidden in the Bible is to practice divination. Even if Zerby and Kelly were to relinquish their positions, IMO, the whole group is so badly affected that they could never go back. However, God is merciful, and I guess if they were to repent, (dictionary definition of repent: feel deep sorrow about one's actions, wish one had not done, regret, resolve not to continue) like the people of Nineveh in Jonah's day, then God would forgive them. I sincerely believe that David Berg is roasting in hell. It says in Matthew 18 v 6 & 7 : "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!" This is one subject that makes my blood boil, the mistaken belief that "there are some good things about the family". Please, please tell me, what the hell is there good about TF damn it? They just take, take, take from the poor, the so called "mission field" they abuse and use their own, and to top it all off, claim that they are following "the lord" what lord? Certainly NOT my Lord. (reply to this comment)

From Webel Sunday, August 17, 2003, 18:52 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! Mir you crack me up with saying that Berg is roasting in hell! I think that's the least of his worries, it's says in the book of Revelations , if anyone adds to the prophesy of Revelations, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book God shall take away his part from the Book of life" Rev 22:18-19 - So, all that to say that by Berg twisting the end time prophesy and scaring the shit out of us in the process he is bringing on himself plagues and curses. As for that pathetic letter Claire wrote, for one that is probably not her real name, and all the smart arse wording she uses just proves how out of touch she is with reality and how we think and feel. The COG should make financial restitution for all the loses of education and a childhood that we can never claw back, but at least we could have compensation for not having any financial back-up because they stole our inheritence through their lies and the way they literally conned us out of what was rightfully ours - not to mention having to endure having our private parts fondled by the sick perverts and reading their porn lieterature since we could say "dada" (btw I am still traumatized from seeing that woman with a nail going through her...er I will say not more, I think you all know what I mean) (reply to this comment)

From Her name is Sunday, August 17, 2003, 20:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Susan Claire Borowik.(reply to this comment)

From I agree with Ne Oublie Friday, August 01, 2003, 09:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I also know people who are still in the Family & while I might not agree with their choices, I respect their choices. I absolutely abhor the Family leadership, but just because I believe that they are evil (or deluded or insane or whatever) does not mean that every single person in the Family is also of that nature. I know a lot of good people in the Family. Granted, they are getting harder and harder to find as more people leave the group, but still, I have friends who are still in the group and regardless of what I think of their religious views, they are still good people and they are sincere in what they believe and I'm not about to start throwing out labels and lumping everyone into the the same evil pot. The Family itself may have some pretty nasty rotten fruit to show, but there are some individual Family members who have done a lot of good & helped a lot of people. They should get the credit for it, not the Family, because obviously they managed to do this good despite the Family not because of it. You also have to face the fact that not EVERYBODY that grew up in the group had a bad time there. I know a few people that left the group, not because they have any problems with the way they were raised, but simply because they had other goals in life (like to make money or to get a good education). I think that if we want people to believe us when we say that bad things happened in to us in the group and trust me, I've had enough conversations with current Family members to know how absolutely frustrating denial can be, then we also have to be willing to accept it is true when someone says they had good experiences in the group. I hate it when people try to force their "truth" on me, as if their experiences are my experiences so I really try not to do that to other people. I don't think anybody here wants to defend the Family and if you think that that's what this is, please read through it again. I think that all some people are saying is that not everybody in the group had bad experiences, not everybody who leaves the group hates it and that there are still some good people in there & yes, some people in the Family even managed to do some good.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 01, 2003, 11:20 (Agree/Disagree?) I do not think anyone here who has been abused by the cult the Family really cares if they "believe us." We know it happened. The Family knows it happened because they committed the acts. The Family's crimes have been corroborated by the hundreds of accounts of those abused, many which are on this website, many which are not. Whether or not there is an individual who considers themselves a "member" of the cult the Family who is also considered by another individual former member of the Family to be a "good person" is really irrelevant. The Family cannot undo their history. The crimes have been committed. Even members in terrorist organizations might believe they are doing good, or a member of such an organization might be considered by a former member or even a non-member to be a "good person." What difference does it make? Some women marry mass-murders when they are on death row. They even claim they love the person. Does that negate the crimes they committed? There are lots of kind, "good" Catholic people, and even some "good" priests. Does that negate that the Catholic Church has harmed thousands of children and attempted to cover it up? No. No, you will not receive any respect from me for any individual still involved in the cult the Family, which exposes children to illicit and perverse sexual doctrines in the name of God and prayer. That cult, unlike the Catholic Church, has never paid retribution for their crimes. They have not even asked forgiveness or admitted they occurred. The hypocritical, escapist letter or two they point to does not count. The very founders and leadership of this cult are responsible and deserve to spend time in jail. They cannot ever be considered a legitimate organization or expect acknowledgment, much less respect, until those responsible are held accountable, including Claire Borowick herself. My God, the very spokesperson for the Family is guilty herself of crimes against children. She may very well believe what she and her former husband have done to the children in their care was sincerely God's love, but it does not make their acts any less criminal. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, August 01, 2003, 09:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Mir, Whether or not you agree with all of the Family's beliefs, the fact is that the majority of Family members that I know are genuinely doing their best to help in the societies and countries they live in. I'm not saying that everyone is all that altruistic, but the vast majority of members that I know do sincerely believe that they are doing their best. It seems to me that this is another case of attacking someone for expressing a moderately pro-Family stance. In saying that the Family has done some good Wolf was not negating any bad has been done in or by the Family, he was just acknowledging the fact that they HAVE done some good. As Jules has said a number of times, this site is meant to allow everyone to express 'their own truth' (set aside that I consider that statement to be an oxymoron, for the moment - either it's true or it's not!) Yet, it's pretty obvious that the only 'truths' that are accepted as credible are those that show the Family as evil. I have many good friends, not to mention much of my family, who are still members of the Family. I don't for a second question their integrity or sincerity! Nor will I accept any suggestion that they are members of the Family for any reasons beside their own choice! Whether or not I agree with their reasoning is irrelevent, the fact is I respect them as individuals, and as such I respect their choices. In saying this I'm not trying to discredit anyone else's experiences, rather I'm just pointing out the obvious (yet largely ignored, on this site) side that there ARE, and will always be many sincere Family members, and targeting them simply for their membership in the Family is plain wrong! If you've got issues with someone, come out and say it! But don't accuse people you've never even met of things they haven't done - that is 'bearing false report' which is specifically forbidden in Exodus 23:1.(reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, August 01, 2003, 15:18 (Agree/Disagree?) If these friends of yours are so close, whouldn't you rather see them make a life for themselves now out in the real world? Instead of ending up sincere, uneducated, flat-broke adults? Don't you think thats something a friend should want for them? As opposed to letting them continue kidding themselves about just how much of the world they really are saving.. You seem convinced of their sincerity, but doesn't sincere in this case mean they have to blindly follow their 'sincere' leaders to any depth? & you're ok with that?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, August 01, 2003, 18:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Incidentally, I don't see the need for me to go legislating my 'righteousness' on anyone! I'm happy to let people make their own decisions about THEIR OWN life - and then let them live with the outcome of those decisions! I'm secure enough in my own intellect and decisions that I don't have to surround myself with people who hold identical views to mine! If people choose other lifestyles - even ones which I may consider to be unwise - that is their decision, and I don't see the need to end my friendship with them over it.(reply to this comment)

From neez Saturday, August 02, 2003, 00:36 (Agree/Disagree?) You seem to like 'surrounding' yourself(secure?) with sincere people.. But that's a pretty fucken vague definition. I know some class A assholes who are a lot more sincere than any family member.(reply to this comment)

From Mir Friday, August 01, 2003, 14:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Ne Oublie, Ne Oublie, Darling, I'm really really sorry that you still have members of your family in the group. My father still sympathizes with the group and still firmly believes the whole thing, although he no longer lives in communes. That hurts. It hurts like hell, because he is taking sides with the very people who used and abused us, his children. I agree with you 100% that there are people in the Family who are very sincere. Sincerely WRONG. I'm afraid that I CAN accuse people that I've never met of doing wrong things, and I am confident that I wouldn't be "bearing a false report". Why? Because they stood by and watched evil occur before their very eyes and did NOTHING about it!!! They chose to turn a blind eye and did NOTHING to save US, their own flesh and blood! Those "sincere" people watched whilst we were torn apart in the name of Jesus. And still, they refuse to face the truth of their actions, apologize for the damage done (in some cases IRREPARABLE damage) and make restitution. Please, let's not be in denial about this, the truth hurts but it's still the truth. I have come to the conclusion that some people "prefer the darkness to the light because their deeds are evil". These people's conscious has been “seared as with a hot iron”, because they have “sinned against it” for so long. And yet, God is merciful and if they repent and beg for forgiveness, God will forgive them, even after all the crap that’s happened. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, August 01, 2003, 17:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Mir, sorry about your dad. For what it's worth, my dad was the same way for a few years after he left but he came around. I remember when I came back from Spain and he apologized for making us tiptoe around the topic of how evil the cult was and said "fire away." Now he hates them more than anybody. It's hard to make that kind of a paradigm shift when you're older, but I believe it's possible. Good luck.(reply to this comment)

From Mir Saturday, August 02, 2003, 07:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Cheers Joe. I'm afraid I'm loosing hope though. My dad is 10 years older than the average member (62) and I really believe that you can't teach an old dog new tricks. He PREFERS others over his own children. Believe me, that man "adopts" people, usually young and poor and femail, buys them clothes, houses them, feeds them, gives them money freely and gladly. When the time comes to fork out for his own daughter (my eldest sister) who was made pregnant in the cult at 19 and is a single mother with two kids, the man kicks and screams!!!! It makes me LIVID! And on top of it he talks about "how wonderful" TF is, in front of us, rubbing salt into the wounds! And then what happens is that we all end up having a disgusting row which has, in the past, ended up in violence. God damn it!!! It makes me furious! It hurts so bad. I know I'm not supposed to hate and that I am to forgive- and yet he hasn't ASKED for my forgiveness. Does that mean I still have to forgive him?(reply to this comment)

From Webel Sunday, August 17, 2003, 19:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes Mir it does. If you don't let our dad "go" he will continue to have a hold on your life and control the way you feel. Including making you feel angry. Feel angry? for that loser? what a waste of energy. His only contribution he made to my life was a sperm donation. I accept that. It is sad to say this but it's true. Someone who sympathises with such a sick organization is no father of mine, what brough this home that to me was when he preferred a tramp from the street over his own flesh and blood. I thank God I now have a wonderful husband who is a wonderful father to my step son and I know will be when I have his child. That is a REAL father, one who pays maintenance, gives love, and discipline (no spankings but lovingly guides and corrects our son). Now that I know how a real father should be, it has healed the wound of never having one....(reply to this comment)

From neezy Saturday, August 02, 2003, 22:23 (Agree/Disagree?) no, that's a myth..(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, August 01, 2003, 11:33 (Agree/Disagree?) These "decent", "sincere" members stood by while children were being abused! Even if they never commited the crimes themselves, there are wives and mothers as well as husbands and fathers who stood by allowing others to molest and harm their own children as well as the children of others. They fully supported and pledged their devotion to their sick leaders who like to give little boys head and molest their own grandchildren. Where were the voices of these "sincere" and "decent" people then? They deliberatley misrepresented themselves to the public in order to solicit money! The majority of which was solicited directly by the children themselves. They taught their children that its OK to use lies and deciet as long as you get what you want out of it. They made no attempt to get basic medical care for their children, as a result many children contracted unnecessary, easily preventable diseases! Whether sincere or not, every single member in TF knew about these things. Staying and supporting such an organization makes every adult member just as guilty as any perpetrator.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 01, 2003, 10:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Did I just read someone quoting scriptures at someone else? WHOA!!! When did this place become an extension of that cult? Sincerity? The Family is sincere? That makes them benevolent? Any fanatical religious cult member can be defined as sincere. They may very well believe their twisted doctrines with sincerity. Maybe they even sincerely pray as they engage in sexual activity. I’m sure Osma Bin Laden sincerely believes that the thousands who died on 9/11 deserved to die. I’m sure that Mormon murderer out in Utah that said God told him to murder his sister-in-law and her infant sincere believes that the voices in his head are God. One can even be sincerely mentally unstable. That does not justify one act of abuse that corrupt cult has inflicted on thousands of individuals, a majority of whom were children. Terrorist can be sincere. Yet, those who give them aid or associate with them, much less are members themselves, are just as guilty. Just because one distributes religious material does not absolve that individual of culpability for physical, sexual and emotional abuse of children or the damage inflicted on their families, the educational neglect, the medical neglect, the psychological abuse, the mental health neglect, the severing of family units, the confiscation of their property, including that needed for basic sustenance, the food deprivation, the defamation, the public humiliation, false imprisonment, the kidnapping, the intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the list is endless. The Family is an evil, dangerous cult with a long sorted history of criminal activity, including most heinous crimes against children. Just because they claim to commit these acts in the name of God, does not make their crimes any less repugnant or illicit. (reply to this comment)

From Mir Friday, August 01, 2003, 15:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, I was using scripture to make a point to Wolf who claims that he is still a Christian. I don't believe anyone can be a Christian and sympathise with the family at the same time. I'm not using scripture to try and "witness" to anybody (UGH!!!!) (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 02, 2003, 09:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I wasn't referring to you, Mir. I was referring to the person who quoted something with regards to giving false report in response to what I had posted about all the abuse children suffered at the hands of the cult. I think it's appropoe when scriptures are quoted back at someone who is trying to hold the Bible over others. Carry on.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 02, 2003, 11:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, you obviously didn't read my post properly then - since, I had CLEARLY started it out addressed to Mir. You'll note that my post is now directly below one of yours, however that is because it was posted first sequentially (look at the timestamp) and was initially directly below Mir's post. I trust that as a lawyer you treat legal depositions with more attention to detail.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, August 01, 2003, 12:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for proving my point guys! You’re great! Oh, by the way, Nancy, you almost sound like David Berg when he was pissed off about something. Isn’t it funny how hatred tends to turn people into the thing they hate? (reply to this comment)

From porceleindoll Friday, August 01, 2003, 21:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I think that your viewpoint of the cult may be colored by the experiences you or people you knew and loved had in the cult. I agree wiht Wolf that there are a lot of sincere people still in, who are good and are just trying to do their best in the way they know how. And I don't agree with trying to, as someone put it, legislate my own righteousness with those people. I don't agree with the cult, I would never support or back it. But neither do I feel it's my business to interefere with the lives of those who are in. I've come to realise in these past few years that no amount of putting down the cult, defaming it, allowing my anger to come out against it will change the minds of the members who are in. They have to come to those conclusions themselves, and then, at that point, when they begin to open up to the other side, you can talk with them and help them and offer to assist them in putting their life back together. I never experienced any physical or sexual abuse, I had a fairly decent life in the group in a lot of ways, enough food, clothes to wear, house to live in, ..., but I am aware that my sister, my cousin, my sister-in-law and several others were preyed upon by sinister characters who took advantage of David Berg's writings to condone their crimes against the innocent. I would consider myself to have been abused on a spiritual and emotional level, I have had to do a lot of sorting out and rethinking issues, beliefs, not to mention trying to find a career, create a relationship with my mother, and many other things I have encountered since leaving. But there are people in the group whom I still consider to love and consider as my friend, and I don't believe that just because someone is in the group they are automatically evil or warped. There is a chance for each person to make some change in their life and to alter their course, and slowly it is happening. I remember a few months ago debating issues with Dom on FYG or even on Ex-FYG, and he appeared to be quite solidly 'in' the group, but has now left. As soon as someone leaves the group does not mean they have thrown away all of their beliefs and past teachings. It takes time, the amount of time is also usually tied up with their experiences in the group. Some who were considerably abused and mistreated have come to hating the group and standing against it quicker than others who had a fairly good life and didn't suffer the abuses of others. In all fairness we have to respect that in each other and realise that while we have a common background, it is also a varied background and we each come from different experiences that are all tied together by the cult. Just to say to Wolf and others who have positive memories and don't want to relinquish them, I agree and respect you for it, good memories are worth it.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 01, 2003, 13:20 (Agree/Disagree?) It's not about hatred, dear Wolf. It's about right and wrong, legal and illegal. It's also about human rights and civil rights. I do not have to respect those who choose to violate the rights of others, especially children. I also do not have to stand by and do nothing when the egregiousness of the abuse committed by this cult is watered down and excused. I'm not under the control of that cult any longer. Thank God! If you have so much respect for those still in this cult and think it's important to respect people's choices, even when they violate the rights of others, then you should show as much repsect for those who choose to disagree with that cult and not buy its doctrines. Enough of the foregiveness and acceptance and bitterness arguments! No more control. No more telling victims how to think, what to say or what not to say. Enough! No one who has been abused by that cult has to feel any way that is dictated to them or accept any one or repect them, either. They are entitled to continue to call an abuser and abuser, a molester a molestor, a pedophile a pedophile, even if they claim to have found Jesus or have never lost him! (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, August 01, 2003, 17:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy has anger, and I believe she's perfectly entitled to it. I read her stories, and if it had been me or one of my siblings, I'd be ready to start killing people and breaking things. As it stands though, my attitude towards current family members is one of sincere pity. It's sad that they've wasted their lives. Yes, the cult screwed them over and yada yada, but they're responsible too. They're a bunch of sad cases, a perfect example of the patheticness that the human mind is capable of. And where the fuck did you get the idea that Nancy "think[s] it's important to respect people's choices, even when they violate the rights of others"? (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, August 01, 2003, 14:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I think the thing that disturbed me most about David Berg and many group members was their black & white view of the world. A person was either a member of the cult and therefore “in the Lord’s will” or a “systemite”. If we categorize every family member as an “abuser, molester or pedophile”, then we are no better. Nancy, how can you possibly derive from my post that I am trying to get you to forgive, accept or forget? I was clearly stating MY OWN PERSONAL OPINIONS, nothing less and nothing more. I didn’t ask for anyone to agree with me. I have respect for the sacrifices you have made and the struggles you’ve been through in order to give your son the care he needs. I respect the posts you’ve made in which you offered others helpful information or encouraged others. I don’t respect you for implying that anybody still in the cult is violating other’s rights. Discriminating against someone because they belong to a certain group and assuming that they are guilty of certain crimes because some members of the group are guilty is wrong in my book. I’m going to go ahead and give an example to back up what I’m saying: I left the Family in Russia, and the Family does not have the same negative history there that it has in other countries. Russia was always considered a “sensitive field” for obvious reasons, and there were many rules in place which didn’t apply to the rest of the group. In the early 90’s members were not even permitted to have sex outside of marriage in Russia! Of course people have made mistakes and there were even a few individuals guilty of criminal behavior (like the SGA who molested my 12 year old sister, may he burn in hell) but on the whole Family members in Russia did their best to help the Russian people and were not guilty of the things that happened elsewhere. There are over 100 Russians who joined the Family, and they have very little knowledge of the group’s past. Of course they read the “Loving Jesus” series and have been exposed to other weirdness, but they are not aware that the Family has condoned criminal behavior. Questioning these individual’s sanity because of the “weird” things they believe in is one thing; calling these people criminals because they are in the Family is more serious, and in my opinion, no better than calling anybody whose lifestyle differs from yours a “systemite”. Last thing Nancy, you say it’s about “right and wrong”. Who made you the judge of what is right and wrong? Legal and illegal, now that’s more defined. But did you know that when I’m in Geneva, Switzerland, where weed is illegal, I can drive 20 minutes away and be in a Canton where weed is legal? Does that make me right when I smoke where it’s legal and wrong when I smoke in Geneva? (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 01, 2003, 16:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, I see you are stating personal opinion. You should allow others to do the same. Right and wrong are usually moral terms. It's quite accepted that physically abusing children, sexually abusing children, neglecting their educations, neglecting their medical care which causes permenent injury, infliction of emotional distress, food deprevation, etc. are all clear cut moral wrongs.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, August 02, 2003, 01:27 (Agree/Disagree?) It’s remarkable how many people these days use morality blurbs to support their weak arguments. Bush tries to win support for his pointless crusade by claiming that his opponents are “evil”. Claire Borowik tries to undermine the service the SPF intends to provide by implying that Lauren “embraces the system” and therefore ignores “poverty, injustice, prejudice, inequality of wealth and corruption”. Some former members on this site allude that it’s not possible that members of the Family are of service to anyone because they are all “physically abusing children, sexually abusing children, neglecting their educations and neglecting their medical care”. IMO if there’s anything we should’ve learned from our time in the cult, it’s that nothing is all right or all wrong. As kids we were taught that the Family was all “right”. Our experiences taught us otherwise. We were taught that the “system” was all wrong. When we left the group we found out that this, too, was incorrect. But remember that the first generation who started the group actually believed that everything about the system was fucked up, and it was only in their isolated communes that they could find peace and happiness. They got themselves into a mess because of extremism. We should learn from their mistakes and avoid being extremists ourselves. Nancy, would you be good enough to tell me how I’m not allowing you to state your personal opinions on this site? I suppose I could be hacking in to the site’s FTP, but why would I want to do that when I am perfectly capable of countering your generalizations with logical reasoning. If you’re merely upset that I’m ripping your ineffective arguments to shreds, maybe you should learn to be a better lawyer. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 02, 2003, 10:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't see that, but if you think you do, then go right ahead believing it. I'm not here to try to convince anyone. I just don't want to hear younger individuals, who did not experience what many hundreds of us who were born in the early 70s and were teenagers in the late 80s early 90s did, claiming that what we went through was not criminal. Just because a hand full of individuals for whatever reason, maybe their parents had position enough to protect them, did not suffer extreme and severe sexual and physical abuse, does not mean it did not happen and does not mean the Family is any less culpable. I think what is a really weak argument is contending that the Family is a “good” place without a long sordid history of mass child exploitation just because one has a family member or two still in the cult who they think is a “good” person. That is what is weak. That is what is vague. That is what is just plain silly. Love them all you like, it will never erase the harm they have done on a mass scale. We’re not talking about one or two pedophiles, either. We are talking about an organization which conspired to exploit children on an international level. We are talking about an organization which proposed and practiced sexual contact with children and believed that God condoned it. If you think that’s not immoral or wrong, then there is no use talking to you. How I feel personally is irrelevant. You don’t know me. You don’t know how steady my key strokes are. You don’t know what gets to me or upsets me. I can speak passionately about a subject that I did not experience or one which is foreign to me because I have been trained to do so. So, it’s a little presumptuous to think you know what effects me emotionally. Very little here does anymore. Even if I was angered by the newest little advocate for the cult or the newest little denier of what hundreds of us know to be true, it still would not change history or the fact that the Family is a fanatical religious cult unmatched in their crimes against children in the name of God. Even the Catholic Church does not claim children were molested because it was God’s will. I’ll give you an insight into what really gets to me, what makes me emotional. That is the death of yet another one of us who share this awful past. That is that the Family is probably rejoicing because they “pray” against us, as well. That gets to me. It gets to me when I see yet another ex-SGA fighting to make their way in the world, getting nothing but hate letters from the Family calling them blood-sucking demons, much less real support. That gets to me. I feel for those who are really struggling, those really scarred. It tears me up. I feel so strongly because I have been there. My life has been marked by the path of most resistance. What I think is really sad and pathetic and what really makes me angry is that the Family only comes to this site with their condescending, hypocritical nit-picking little letters when they find some hair to split, yet when their own children are dropping dead, they remain silent. They have NEVER come clean, never made amends. They use Claire Borowik as the tool she is. Strange how that word, which has such a negative connotation in real life, is considered a compliment in the odd, alter universe of the Family. Where has Claire personally apologized for the irreparable harm she has caused? Where has she written one line on the part of that cult sincerely apologizing and admitting what they have done to their own children? If you are in touch with what is going on in the US, you would hear the voices of all the hundreds of victims of abuse of the Catholic Church, screaming for justice. I heard one such speech on NPR last week from a man who was outraged when an indictment for conspiracy to conceal was not returned against the Boston Arch Diocese. Not once have I heard anyone, stoop to the weak argument that those victims should forgive and forget. Not once have I heard some trivial statement to a victim of the good the church has done. Not once. Why? Because it’s weak, and in the real world, the victims are not told to forgive, accept, forget, move on and believe their abusers have changed. What’s more, I personally think it is beneath me to debate this issue. It devours my time at home with my son, which is precious. It also devours my time at work, which I need to devote to my clients. I am satisfied with my position. I don’t need anyone’s agreement. I pity those who feel the Family is benevolent or who have “friends” still in the cult. I pity all they are exposed to and the long fight they will have ahead if ever they want to change their life for the better and break free. It a path I walked as a young teenager. I’ve been there. I’ve also come a long way and can look back and feel pity for those still there. It is also not worth my energy to be confronted with the views of someone still way back there, for lack of a better term. I know where I stand. I don’t need the agreement of someone who still has a long way to go. Further, I also think it’s a waste of my time to discuss an issue I find so morally wrong. I find it disgusting and reprehensible the way the Family has turned on their own children. They are responsible for so many of the torn lives of their children. They are responsible because rather than support and love and care for and encourage their children to find their own path and individuality, they devoured them and exploited them for their own evil enrichment. They used their children, exploited their labor, used them for sexual pleasure, shared them with other adult cult members. They treated their children like chattle, like a resource which belonged to them. They never have realized that children do NOT belong to us. We are only blessed with their presence and responsible for providing them with all they need to develop into the adults they choose to become. We are to support their choices, not manipulate them into supporting our lives. And when their children finally revoked and tried to escape the wicked cult they were unfortunate enough to be born into, then they attempted to beat them into submission. The real horrific stories, I assure you, have yet to be told. But, they will in time. Not here though. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a little one to attend and work to be done. But, I will mention again what really effects me is when another one of us is dead. Where is the Family now? Have they even bothered to acknowledge it? All the while we go on debating doctrines here, there are people out there struggling to get by with what little resources they can muster after escaping from the Family. It makes me literally sick. The Family is a sore on my life, that I would rather forget. But, it is impossible. They turn my stomach. I hope for a day when they would finally mend all the wrong they have done, when they will admit what they have done in the lives of their own children, when they will really try to help and undo, rather than sending more hate like salt in the wounds they made, but I know I am hoping against reality and what is possible. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, August 02, 2003, 17:00 (Agree/Disagree?) I don’t feel like arguing with a person who doesn’t read my posts all the way through (though I intentionally keep them short), and consequently comments on them without understanding them. Did I say the Family was good? Anybody? Somebody? Unlike you I don’t claim to be a judge of what’s good and bad. I said there are still things I like about the cult. Things I LIKE. Is it still legal to like things in your state? I lived in the cult for 26 years (I’m not as young as you thought) and I never saw a child screaming out in pain as he / she was being abused by a wicked adult. There were children my age who were badly mistreated and I am very mad at the people who mistreated them, but I don’t blame everybody in the group for their crimes. The people who stood by and did nothing also share in the blame, but there are many people who did not witness these crimes at all, and you’re grouping them in with the abusers. That sounds like a witch hunt to me, like the inquisition. You say “the Family” is culpable. I agree. The question is, who or what is the Family? David Berg is culpable for creating an environment friendly to abuse, and for being an abuser himself. Zerby, Kelly, Sarah and a number of others are guilty of being accessories to crime, and committing crimes as well. Hundreds of adults who committed crimes are also culpable. Is every member of the Family guilty? If so, why? I understand you left the group a long time ago, but surely you realize that children in the cult rarely suffer physical abuse at this present time? If you consider home schooling abusive, I think you are very narrow minded and I would like to remind you that home schooling is legal in most countries. Please do spend more time with your son. I’m sure it will be more productive than the time you spend regurgitating old arguments for us.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Friday, August 01, 2003, 12:15 (Agree/Disagree?) First off, Nancy, I used a Biblical reference to make a point to someone who claims to be a Christian, and who used the Bible to make her own point: Mir. Secondly, the Bible is respected by the majority of the world's population, as at least having generally good advice (Christians, Muslims and Jews all hold at least parts of it as Divinely inspired). My point is simply that not all members have done all the stuff you mention - many that I know aren't guilty of ANY of it! They are my friends, and I respect them and their choices, the same as I respect you and yours! Yes, there are those who did all that, while thinking that it was 'God's will' or whatever, but there are also some who are NOT mis-representing themselves, who are actually DOING what they say they are, and who are conducting themselves in a Christian manner. I'm just saying, don't accuse the innocent just because you've got a beef with the guilty! As a matter of fact, a lot of the names I've heard as being guilty of abuse are no longer even Family members! Are they suddenly scott-free, just because they aren't in the Family any more? Stick to the issues, and real facts, and quit the generalised accusations! You're a lawyer, you should respect the importance of presenting factual evidence, and those generalised statements are simply inaccurate. So keep your statements to what you can actually verify, and everyone will be happy!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, August 01, 2003, 13:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, the allegedly "innocent" need not move in, live, eat, believe, pray, go by the same name and act with the guilty if they hope not to be considered one and the same. Further, everything I have stated is verifiable by myself and individuals here who lived, saw, experienced and suffered it. You overlook the nearly seventeen years in which I saw and experienced physical abuse and sexual molestation with my own eyes and body and being inflicted on my siblings and the other children around me. In fact, I was the lucky winner of horrific physical abuse and witness to it inflicted upon other children around me, before you were even born. The Family is the issue, darling. Their cult, their doctrines, their practices, their abuses, dictated and practiced by the very founder and his leadership all the way down. If you've got a few buddies you feel are "good" guys, then I suggest they not associated with a fanatical religious cult which has a more than twenty year history of abusing children, if you want them to be considered respectable. "Generalized accusations," "real facts," and "issues," blah, blah, blah... Using such big terms, doesn't shore up your arguments or claims. When more than hundreds of individuals have been abused by the doctrines and practices of a religious sect/cult, then it's not a generalized accusation to say that the cult is an abusive one. There's not too many countries in this world that allow sex with minors, some as young as seven years old. The Family has. Therefore, their doctrines are illegal. They've admitted their sexual practices and doctrines are illegal, see Mama's Summit Jewels for one of hundreds of published statements in their literature which condones sexual contact with children. But, I'm not going to debate with you what are or are not the facts of history that nearly everyone on this site experienced with their own eyes. I saw the abuse, physical, emotional, sexual, psychological, as well as neglect, medical, mental health and educational, myself, in the years in many countries I lived in the cult. I have seven younger siblings who experienced the same. Yes, it is all verifiable. I have the physical scars on my body. My siblings have them. Others here have them, too. So, don't come here telling me or anyone about your claims of "factual evidence." Such incredulous, trite declarations reveal only your lack of knowledge on the history of that cult. Whereas, you claims that members of that cult are "good" people have hardly been substantiated, and are about as generalized and unverifiable as they come. "Awe, they aren't that bad. I don't believe all those children were abused. Stick to the issues. I think they're good people because they're nice to me, so it must not have happened. " Ugh! Sickening! (reply to this comment)

From I'm getting bored now... Friday, August 01, 2003, 18:10 (Agree/Disagree?) I find it rather ironic that a lawyer would consider "Generalized accusations," "real facts," and "issues," to be "big terms". I dunno what they're teaching in Law School these days, but yeesh, I learned that in grade school! You said that everything you said is verifiable, fair enough - I have never disputed whether those things happened, however you CANNOT verify that every Family member has done that, or even that every Family member has personally witnessed such events taking place - for the plain and simple reason that you HAVEN'T MET every single Family member! I am not closing my eyes to anything that has happened, nor am I brining into discussion any reports of what DID happen. I am just pointing out that one person's guilt does not automatically make everyone who shares such beliefs also guilty! Yes, there are things that the 'innocent' could have done to report problems to authorities, or whatever, but you also have to remember that in many cases those 'innocent' Family members never even met the people you're talking about! I know I didn't, and I was in the Family for over 20 years! I mean, most of my time in the Family I was in isolated countries, with few other members - and not only were the 'leadership' not in the same country, but I didn't even know where they were because of all the security! I saw things that were good and bad in the Family, but nothing that I saw was criminal! There were beliefs which I could not reconcile myself with, and publications which I disagreed with, but at the end of the day I DID NOT commit any crimes, nor did I personally witness any being committed! You're right, everyone should be held to account for their own actions! But I believe they should be THEIR OWN ACTIONS - not the actions of someone else in the group! Don't you have enough to worry about in chasing down those who are actually guilty, and who DID cause harm to others, without harassing those who simply want to practice their (strange perhaps) beliefs?(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, August 01, 2003, 19:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmmm!!! I wonder, were you far away in some very foreign field that you were not privy to the current Mo letters and family publications clearly and explicitly stating their sexual beliefs??? I also wonder if you were some special case who was not expected to send in your monthy tithe which, of course, would absolve you of any responsibility for financially supporting the organization responsible for such publications?? (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 02, 2003, 04:29 (Agree/Disagree?) The beauty of Freedom of Religion is that you can believe in WHATEVER YOU LIKE - or even nothing at all! A belief is not a criminal offence, only carrying through on it. So, while having recieved the MO Letters may indicate that someone believed in certain questionable sexual practices, it does not make one guilty of them - so long as they did not actually DO them! As for financial support, by that same logic, every American citizen is in support of the war in Iraq, and the current occupation - because it's their $'s that are paying for it, not to mention their elected President and Congress that decided on the war! There are bound to be opinions which one will share with another, and at the same time those which they do not. The fact that one opinion (or more) is shared does not automatically mean that all are - nor does it implicate them in the other persons' guilt. And... for the record... I have NOT prevented you from expressing your opinions! I have disputed your generalised accusations (ooohhh, BIG WORDS again - get a dictionary) but never any verifiable reports.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Saturday, August 02, 2003, 14:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Religious freedom was not really an option in the Family according to Berg. January 1978 the RNR letter. "We have heard of quite a few instances where leaders have changed the meaning of my letters by their actions or verbal interpretation. My letters mean exactly what they say, literally, and they don't need explaining away, spiritualising or re-interpreting by anyone! The letters are going to be the leaders and will be obeyed better if they don't have any other officers interfering." Book Burning - You are What you Read: Part 2. "Why don't you read the old letters that you have never read? You will find there is a lot of truth in every one of them. If you find anything wrong with them, please let me know. If you are right, I'll be glad to correct it. .... You either believe the letters or don't. Don't tell me, "I believe parts of it, I believe some of it" .... You can take it or leave it. But if you want to survive in this Family you better take it! Or leave!" August 1989 "D.O. is for DOers." [various offences and sins for which the guilty parties would be excommunicated] "2. Unbelief in the letters. People who are ashamed of what we believe and ashamed of what I write ought not to be in this army, they ought not to be with us! If you want to be part of this man's army, you had better believe what I have to say and what I have said and what God has given me and shown me; or for God's sake, get out. 3. Critical of Dad, Family or the letters. We don't believe in supporting people who don't support us and our works and our ways. 4. Murmurers, troublemakers and bad apples. Excommunicate them. 5. Weak sisters and brothers .... who poisoned the minds and hearts and spirits of others ... get rid of them. 6. Failure to obey Family rules: people who don't obey, people who ignore the Letters, who ignore all my extensive counsel and advice on security, they don't even belong in The Family! Give me obedience and absolute adherence to the rules of The Family or get them out! 7. Failure to obey leadership: insubordination and rebellion against leadership cannot be countenanced in any man's army. ... If people don't obey and don't do what they are told to do and don't follow the Letters and disregard leadership and disrespect all the laws and rules, they are not one of us! We can't have disobedient rebellious wilful stubborn soldiers who can't take orders and even follow suggestions, not in this man's army." February 1992 Summit 92 - "Our Problems and the Lord's Solutions "Over and over again the Lord emphasised the point that he had already given us the direction we need through the words of David. The main message ... was that we should go back to the basics, back to the plan he has so clearly revealed to Dad, and obey and do what is already written. During the last meeting the Lord said: "... Doth thou not see that obedience unto the words of David is the key?..." He seemed to want to re-emphasise to us all, through these prophecies, the importance of reading obeying and living the Letters." "The right thing is to obey" "You must obey the least of these commandments", "God Hates Murmuring", "Grumblers Get Out", "Get the Victory or Get Out", "On Guard" etc. etc. etc. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, August 02, 2003, 17:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules, correct me if I’m wrong, it seems you have a misconception about religious freedom. As I understand it, religious freedom is the liberty to choose which religion one wishes to adhere to. Once a person chooses to adhere to a certain religion, I think they are invariably aware that they will need to abide by certain rules and profess certain beliefs if they wish to remain a part of the religion they have chosen. A frequent problem with religions, which is not unique to the Family, is that parents try to pressure their children to adhere to the same beliefs and practices that they espouse. This often results in conflict, and when these children grow up they are often upset that their parents tried to pour them into a particular mold. In any case, my understanding of religious freedom is choosing which religion you would like to belong to (if any). Even if you choose adherence to a religion with very narrow minded views, you are still practicing freedom of religion. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Saturday, August 02, 2003, 20:34 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right Wolf. I was mixing up the arguments. I was thinking about freedom of religion as it applies to children raised in the culture of The Family. All those quotes were in response to Ne Oublie's statement that people didn't have obey Berg's letters, and could just read them and choose to ignore bits that they didn't feel like following. After all the grief I went through in the Family for doubting and questioning, it's more than a bit annoying to have someone say that it was a take-your-pick sort of deal with Berg's writings. It most definitely was not. I know some people didn't "follow closely" but we certainly were supposed to. I understand that these days, only direct revelation from Zerby, Kelly or Jesus has to be followed, but from what I remember it was always direct revelation (at least till the prophecy didn't happen, and then it was our fault or god's loving mercy in changing his mind). Someone else said this, and I can't remember who or where, but pretty much every GN now is straight prophecy. How are people supposed to be able to debate with that? (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Sunday, August 03, 2003, 06:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, maybe I wasn't as good of a Family member as you originally thought, Jules! So long as there weren't any 'shepherds' living in the same Home, all one would have to do is 'check' a couple of boxes on the TRF, and they didn't know any better! There are certain benefits to independence.(reply to this comment)

From Jules Sunday, August 03, 2003, 20:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Ne Oublie, the thing is that IMO it's a bit like tobacco. Sure some people smoke and only smoke a bit, or quit before they get cancer, but tobacco is a product that when used exactly as it is manufactured to be used causes disease and death. The adults I knew in the Family as a child certainly didn't always implement the things that Berg wrote, but if they really were 110% disciples, and being what the Family was supposed to be all about (unquestioning obedience to the "letters", obeying God--as channeled by Berg--and not "man's" laws, "spoiling the system", being deceivers yet true, being the Endtime army with no time for "nursing wounds", etc. etc.) then they were supposed to be doing exactly what they were instructed to do in the Family's publications. Off this topic a bit, something I have heard frequently from the friends I grew up with who are out of the Family is disdain for young people in the Family now who are really just there for the lifestyle. Some of us, and especially some who are older, actually believed the things we were taught, and when we didn't believe it anymore, we left. Many of us felt that to stay in and support something we did not believe in would have been wrong. Checking off boxes on the TRF would have been lying, and after all the Ananias and Sapphira classes, personally I felt unbearable guilt for being even a bit untruthful about anything, and eventually would have to confess. I have had hardly any contact with former members let alone current members before this web site, but I was shocked to see the amount of laziness, deception, drinking, drugs and debauchery among the young people in the Family. I was pretty wild at the time, and they were more out there than me. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 04, 2003, 05:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules, Well, I certainly didn't come here expecting to be lectured on my lack of discipleship while within the Family! The point I am making, is that although you may not agree with people - or you may even believe that what they are doing is morally wrong, unless they actually cross the line of breaking the law, they aren't criminals. I'm not (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, August 04, 2003, 05:37 (Agree/Disagree?) sorry... slip of the keyboard there... to continue where I left off: I'm not saying that I do, or that you should, agree with people's beliefs, nor does one have to think that others' beliefs are morally 'right'. But so long as they aren't personally breaking the law then it IS slanderous to call them criminals - no matter what the actions of others who share that belief.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Sunday, August 03, 2003, 05:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you on that, obeying the leadership is a must in the cult.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, August 02, 2003, 10:28 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! Nice try, but I'm afraid I'm not goona take the bait! Your political metaphor has nothing to do with the current topic! (I'm sure there will be furthur opportunities to argue about the legitimacy of this "elected" President later!) I agree that people are not responsible for whats only in their head. However, by coosing to stay in an organization where child abuse was not only condoned but encouraged, they directly put their children in harms way and it makes them as parents responsible for the abuse as well. Any other adults, while they may not have been molesters themselves, stood by silently and let it happen. By staying in and financially contributing, which every member was required to do in some way or another, they did directly contribute to and support an organization that abused children.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 02, 2003, 10:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Hold on, I didn't say that people aren't responsible for what's in their heads - they ARE! I just said that thinking or believing in something doesn't make one a criminal! Your metaphor of adults 'standing by silently' would be relevent IF they had actually been present, or first-hand witnesses to any abuse. However, those who were not cannot be held responsible for actions which were committed on the other side of the globe! Anyhow, like Nancy, I've spent enough time on this discussion, so I'm gonna move on to more ££ PROFITable ££ pursuits!(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, August 02, 2003, 11:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Come on, lets cut the crap shall we??? We all know what happened just as well as each and every adult in TF did. Their choice to ignore or turn a blind eye to the abuse is not a metaphor, its a fact!(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, August 01, 2003, 13:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I can personally verify every accusation Nancy just made, except the kidnapping. Those ARE "the issues and the real facts"! Although they can be verified, I'm sure noone is happy about it!(reply to this comment)

From Another Saturday, August 02, 2003, 01:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I can verify all of the accusations including kidnapping. Claire, you should be grateful for the corruption found in the System. Without it you would have been stopped long ago. Funny how you can change that paragraph: "In order to embrace the [Family] to the degree you espouse, one has to ignore the evils of poverty, injustice, prejudice, inequality of wealth and corruption from which so many suffer. Not to mention the exploitation of developing [children]; politically-motivated [mass excommunications] that take [over] the lives of millions while devastating the econom[ic prospects]; pollution [from the Letters] and the extravagant depletion of natural [human] resources by [callous leaders] at the expense of the poor, and the list goes on."(reply to this comment)

From Mir Friday, August 01, 2003, 15:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Same here, and we are not the only ones either!(reply to this comment)

From Puzzled Thursday, July 31, 2003, 21:10 (Agree/Disagree?) While I definitely agree with you on the fact that there is a lot of negativity on this site, I think it's ludicrous that anyone who is not anti-Family or remotely positive about any aspect of their life in the Family is immediately ostracized. Maybe you got bashed and I probably haven't read the comment you're talking about but you're still here aren't you? And didn't you have someone posting some time ago that they admired you or something like that? And didn't Nancy (who is a 10 on my richter scale of anti-Family) say she agreed with some of the things you've posted here -- obviously not the pro-Family ones. But my point is, you've not been ostracized for your pro-Family comments. (Nancy, don't get mad, I'm not insulting you. You're just my measuring stick on the opposite end of the Family with the Family apologetics rating a 1) The only post I can recall that got that kind of treatment was the one from someone called "CC" who wrote a huge long letter about how wonderful the Family was -- and even then, she had people standing up for her right to her own opinion. The thing is, even if this site does have a lot of negativity, a lot of it is probably necessary. Isn't this site about everyone being able to speak their own truth? Sometimes truth is not so pretty -- especially where the Family is concerned. That said, man, Claire Borowik, were you reaching or what? I mean, why can't you guys just for once say, "hey, thanks for your help. Maybe those poor guys in Brazil would like to get a free ticket home instead of raising funds for 6 months. Then they can use the money they do have for rent, or food, or to hold them over while they look for a job." Where on earth is your sympathy? You guys are so concerned about being "right" all of the time you can't pull your fingers out of your ears long enough to hear what someone else is really saying. Why don't you let the people the letter was written to decide for themselves if they want the help or not. Is it really your place to make that decision? I'll bet the Family has already done one of their spin jobs, "listen guys, don't take their help, they are going to try to poison your mind". Whatever.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Saturday, August 02, 2003, 09:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm a 10 on someone's anti-Family scale? That's the nicest thing any one has said to me in a long time!(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, August 01, 2003, 00:46 (Agree/Disagree?) I’m not a Family member so I don’t get offended by negative posts regarding the group, and I certainly don’t get offended by opinions opposite to my own. As for Claire’s letter, it is odd that she thinks there are only two extremes, the Family on one hand and “the touted ‘individualism’ of existentialism, which comes down to the modernistic worship of the secular and conformity to the values liberally imposed on the public via the media.” There are so many individuals and organizations that are anti-system. (reply to this comment)

From Puzzled Thursday, July 31, 2003, 21:11 (Agree/Disagree?) First paragraph should read: While I definitely agree with you on the fact that there is a lot of negativity on this site, I think it's ludicrous to claim that anyone who is not anti-Family or remotely positive about any aspect of their life in the Family is immediately ostracized. (reply to this comment)

from dave Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 13:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Who does Claire Borowik think she is anyway? Why did she have to get get into all the stupid petty arguments? Totally unecessary. This response was obviously written on the fly with not much though given. She ought to take a few lessons from former spokesmen James Rubin, Ari Fleicher and others. Hey Tim R., maybe if the cult paid you enough you could give them some Public Relations advice. LOL. Just kiddin. (reply to this comment)

from jackie Thursday, July 31, 2003 - 10:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I have to say that I found it pathetic , and sadly extreemly familiar the way the Family always has to get into the little details that might help them save-face! Most of all coming from an organisation so super full of flaws. None of the stupid arguments offered by this person had any weight and definetly nothing to do with the situation. Lauren in name of the SPF sent this article for people interested in getting help with their "change of lifestyle" , if they really believe in helping "those not wishing to remain in the Family" then why couldnt they just make this information available? What is their fear and why so much crap? I believe in the freedom of speach and the right of people to be informed - supposedly so do they ; so why not just forget about "reading between the lines" and trying to find points where they dis-agree with Laurens personal opinion ( SOMETHING THAT IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT AT HAND)! I hope that this info is made available for the ones who might need it and that for once The Family stops trying to look so righteous and starts worrying a bit more about people. And by the way just one last thing I wanted to say; having enough funds to pay a plane ticket is honestly not even the first step in getting a life! Family members seem to always think "ok just go and God will provide" , how ridiculous! I sincerely hope that the "support" they offer is more then a plane ticket! As far as the comment about getting their school papers in order-WHAT PAPERS? I personally dont know any EX-FAMILY who grew up in The Family who have ANY school papers-MUCH LESS IN ORDER?! Ok well thats all, take care all! (reply to this comment)