|
|
 |
|
Getting in Touch : Connections
LOOKING FOR MY SONS DAD-MATTHEW OF SHALOM | from renata - Wednesday, February 23, 2005
accessed 3960 times HELLO
MY NAME WAS RENATA. WHILE I SPENT SO MANY YEARS IN PUERTO RICO, I HAD A SON NAMED MIGUEL. HE IS NOW 17 YRS OLD AND HE IS SO ANGRY INSIDE. MOSTLY BECAUSE HE HAS NO FATHER IN HIS LIFE. MATTHEW OF SHALOM WAS HIS FATHER. CAN YOU PLEASE CONTACT ME MATTHEW YOUR SON WANTS TO KNOW YOU. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from renata
Friday, March 02, 2007 - 14:27
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I have been reading the comment and I am shocked what Matthew have to say to Figaro, what a liar. maybe he has something to lie to his latest wife.
Multiple partener: I have 1 in the Dominican Republic Solomon and he was black very black you turn off the light and no one could see him
And Matthew when I return to Puerto Rico.
Of course when he saw Miguel He knew he was his son.
and he still know .
Yes I have been trying to find him, but when I left I left totally, with my kids, I did not want anything to do with anymone, so the magazine you are talking about I never heard about it and I dought that many canadian from Montreal or Ottawa know about it also. But I wrote and wrote to W.S. and ask. I send letter and ask to be forwarded. and nothing happen.
that is the fact
(reply to this comment)
|  From Lance
Friday, March 02, 2007, 18:27
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Listen Renata, either get your son on here to explain why he wants to hear from Matthew, or just be a little patient.
Figaro is right in what he has to say about the family situation and the claims you are trying to state here.
You are trying to speak for your son in his own journey. He's old enough to decide for himself without his mother doing it for him. As far as I'm concerned you are nothing more than one of those crazy FGA women trying to harass people that have appeared in your past.
This is about more than your son here: this is about my family, and I'll be damned if I allow another crazy cult member interfering with my family.
To me, this all seems like a pathetic attempt to bring more drama to those who have chosen to free themselves from the brainwashing, and back into the cult's way of thinking.
There is a sincerity lacking in your request. We have all lost fathers, and mothers. I will be your son’s brother: I will be his friend. But I will not say a damn word until I hear from him.
The one thing I despise the most of all family members, is the crazy "auntie" who wishes to create an illusion because they do not have a life of their own.
Your son has a life of his own, let him speak for himself and stop living his life for him.(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Friday, March 02, 2007, 17:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
again, his word over yours. and i belive him! nothing you can say will change that!
also, i might point out, that you have had over the last week or so, the best chance of getting him in contact with his supposed "father" that you have had in what, 18 years? and its likely the best, and LAST chance youll ever get. id think if you were sincere you would have jumped on it, but since you havent your credabilty has pretty much gone out the window!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From figaro
Monday, March 12, 2007, 22:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
you so fucking stupid Reneta, i told you that he WILL contact him if you give me his email address so that he can, YOU WONT DO IT!!! how exactly is he supposed to contact him when you wont give him any way to? he is EXTREMELY responsible, YOUR the one who is being irresponsible.
you boggle my mind with your lack of intelligence. you have no idea what mathews reaction to this is, you only know mine. and i have TRIED to help you.
please tell me, what exactly is it that you want Mathew to do? you keep saying you want him to contact your son, well since YOU wont let him contact your son by denying him the email address to do so, then you obviously DONT want him to contact him. so why dont you tell me what exactly it is that you want. (reply to this comment) |
| | from renata
Monday, February 26, 2007 - 12:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
nonononon
I want to see how Matthew feel first , I dont want my son to get hurt again, because if he does not want anything to do with him I know he can hurt his feeling bad.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From renata
Friday, March 09, 2007, 08:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
I read all the comment that is going on, I read the hurt and the feel of you young people, I am raising young man myself and I know what they go thrue.
But since I left I try to give my sons a home, stability and security.
If Matthieu dont want to get in contact with his own son "which by the way He know darn well he is" than I tried.
Let him call himself a Christian but a Christian that reject his own.
My heart is clear I hope one day he will realize the hurt he is doing and belive me he knows for the past 19 years either he has no concience or a good comedian
That is it for me(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Friday, March 09, 2007, 09:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
wow Renata, you are blowing away all standards for stupidity.
i told you to give me the email and i will tell mathew to contact him, but have you? no you havent! YOUR the one stopping your son from getting in contact with mathew, not him. mathew doesnt even come onto this site, so he only knows what he is told by me or lance.
your "heart is clear"? it really seems to me like this sad half attempt at contacting him is simply for your own peace of mind and nothing else. you fucked your sons life up and your trying to blame it on mathew so you can sleep at night believing all these problems he is having stem from mathew and NOT you! your a typical adult that wont take responsibility for your own actions.
you "feel the hurt" we go through because your raising a son? FUCK YOU! you have NO IDEA what we have been through. you left the family 17 years ago, your son never went through what we did, and neither did you, so don't think for a second you have a CLUE what we went through!
(reply to this comment) |
| | from figaro
Sunday, February 25, 2007 - 17:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Look, i feel your sons pain. so if you just give me his email address i will make sure mathew gets it and ill tell him he should contact him. that is the best i can do for you.
(reply to this comment)
| from renata
Saturday, February 24, 2007 - 14:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course more than one shrink told us that before, he was on different med until he was 16 then he stop.
Why is he not looking himself? Miguel is a bit different he is not as quick as the other kids he is 19 and now go to a special school because he need help,
2. He is not allowed in the USA
There is not excuse at that time the Mo letter were clear that the father should take responsability of their kids, few letters came out sorry cannot tell which one since I got rid of them but they were all to encorage "sperm" to take responsability
(reply to this comment)
| From conan
Monday, February 26, 2007, 08:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
And of course, the MO letters were/are the standard for moral behavior and as a guide post as to how to live life to the fullest! If they said that 'sperm' should take responsibility for their kids, then by all means 'sperm' should man up and provide child support and a father figure in the embryonic cell-like form they help to create. Hey, why doesn't the penis the 'sperm' came from chip in too? The father is hardly important, especially when it's in such contradiction with the majority of what Father David had to say about one-wife and one family, no?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from figaro
Wednesday, February 21, 2007 - 19:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
he is my step father. i have his contact info.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | From cassy
Friday, March 02, 2007, 02:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think there is a complete unbalance here. What about this guy Matthew who had sex with some single mother when HE WAS MARRIED? She broke no vows, he did. Regardless of the messy situation and who was guilty, it doesn't matter a bit to the child. They are the innocent, and so many parents take it out on the kid. All this woman is trying to facilitate is her son getting to meet his father. This is one of the most common things ever. In fact he wouldn't be normal if he didn't want to meet him and see who he is. I do think it should be sorted out in private, but sadly this won't be the last time this comes up due to Berg's Law of Love and sharing. I think though, that what should be remembered always is that if there are children involved it doesn't matter how it happened, the father (or mother as the case may be, though that's rarer) if he is a decent person would give that child a chance - they are not the enemy - they are their son or daughter, their flesh and blood, who ultimately need resolution and closure.(reply to this comment) |
| | From AC
Friday, March 02, 2007, 04:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe I'm missing something here but weren't these people in TF? If so, they didn't break any vows. No one who got married in TF took any vows to be monogamous. Quite the opposite. Birth control was also strongly discouraged if not forbidden. If it was God's will for you to get pregnant, you would and the idea was that using birth control would be going against God's will. Later with the new rules in 1987 they allowed condoms (but certainly not the pill) for STD prevention not birth control. It was very common for a married man to father a child with a single woman. This doesn't mean that these people were not irresponsible and stupid but let's not forget where they were at the time. Other than that I agree with your comments.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From renata
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 13:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
I dont know who you are to have seen me having my kids as most of them were born in different continent, but I feel you are young,
In those days you had the pressure to share that you like it or not,
After my 4 sons was born "he has down syndrome" they ask me to share with a "brother" who was temporalty separate from his wife, to comfort him, I refuse, I had enough
Well within a month I was told I was not happy anymore there and to leave and go as a trf, and it those days it was scary and not easy
Responsability in those days were after we put Jesus and the Family first, I was irresponsible to stay that long but it took me a while to realize that it was not right(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 23:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
True, but harsh. I too have seen some single mothers with children from 5 or 6 different fathers. Yes, it does boil down to personal responsibility. They got pregnant, and chose to let the father move on, without keeping them in touch with their offspring. On the one hand, you could blame it on the culture built by the mo letters. With everyone being one family, they probably didn't realise the impact this would have. You could also blame it on the free ride boys, who hopped from home to home, never settling down with any sex partner. But at the end of the day, the women must have noticed at least after their older ones were getting a bit older, that children needed a father. But I do have a measure of sympathy for the single mothers. Family culture in the 80's was very sexist. If she was at all sexually attractive, it would have been difficult for her to be "the girl who wouldn't", and contraceptive use was not encouraged. I'm not saying the single mothers were not to blame. I am saying that by and large, the men abused the system, and were far more irresponsible. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Oddie
Monday, February 26, 2007, 01:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
There's not much I can say that would be of any help. I just wanted to say, I'm 24 years old now, and have never known my biological father. My relationship with my step father has been turbulent at best. I can't say I understand how your son feels, but I did live through some of my teen years wishing I had a father. On the other hand, figaro is in a difficult position too. I don't think the current wife of your son's father should have a say in this, but figaro has no right to pass out his fathers contact details if his father doesn't want him to. It can only be between the father and his/your son. I hope the father will be sensible and responsible enough to contact your son, but I will point out that it may not be the best thing for your son, especially if he has special needs and the father is in a abusive cult.(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
thank you for understanding my position.
well, my mother didnt say that mathew couldnt talk to him, just to not give out her phone number. its her house too and she does get to say who gets her number. thats why email is the way to go.
i also spoke to my mother and mathew, and they told me that there is no way to know if mathew is even the father, since the mother was (as most were) having multiple sex partners at the time. also, mathew (his real name is Rick) has not been in the family for over 10 years now. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From figaro
Friday, March 02, 2007, 11:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
oh, BTW. you realize that in order to claim you have been "trying to get ahold of someone" you have to do more then think to yourself "i wonder where he is", you have to actually DO something proactively to atempt to find him. like for instance there was a family magazine that was still being printed last i checked, but it was started like 12 years ago, called the "zine" i think. anyway, it had a section SPECIFICALLY for looking for someone, had you put an add out in that, he would have seen it. i know that because i read them ALL hoping someone was looking for me. BUT you didnt, so how do you expect me to belive that you have been trying to find him at all?(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From figaro
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 15:20
 (Agree/Disagree?)
says you, sorry but i dont take the word over some slut FGA on face value. HOWEVER, i do not know if he was there or not, this is before i knew him. i was just assuming that he didnt know, he might, i dont know. but, unlike what that mo letter supposedly said, the mother ALWAYS got to take the kid if the parents were not married or if they split up when the child was young. so maybe he DID want to be this kids father at the time, but you took off with him, or the sepeards made amthew go elsewhere, we all know how they split familys up like it was nothing. and 19 years later your doing... whatever you are doing. besides, my mother said they have already spoken to you and your not the innocent that you pretend to be. and i take my mothers word over yours ANYDAY!(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 16:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think this is starting to get out of hand. There could have been so many contributing factors, that not even those directly involved knew.
I can understand you'd trust your mother's word over that of some random woman who pops into your life over a web forum, but name calling, pointing fingers, is it neccessary? Not that I don't enjoy a bit of Jerry every now and then, but there's private chat, email, other less public ways of slinging mud at each other.
The ethics of reconnecting broken families is a topic well worth discussing. The culpability of FGAs as a collective group, is well worth discussing. And while the various opinions of participants regarding this particular situation holds zero sway over this matter, the opinions are still worth hearing. If there's anyone else who feels the secondary topics in this thread are worth discussing further, should we start a new discussion in a new thread?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 23:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, I can understand your respect for him, if he's left TF a decade ago, and has been providing a stable home for your mother. It's not my place to say this I know, but if he truly wants to be responsible, the quickest way to do it would be to run a paternity test. You just might find out that the two aren't related at all, and that would be the end of it. I can understand your mother and stepfather would be apprehensive about something like this popping up after two decades, but imho responsibility doesn't go away after a decade or two. I grew up without a father, so I do sort of wish this kid can find his. Sorry about the negative response you seem to be getting on this thread. I think you have been handling it in a clean and appropriate manner. Hope everything works out.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Lance
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 19:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well Mike, I guess I can say that I'm proud of you for answering this post before I did. even though I knew of it when it was first posted. Matthew is my new step father. and all though I completely dispised him at first, I have grown to respect him a great deal for all the stability that he has shown my mother and my other siblings. Matthew has gone through a great deal in dealing with his own personal relationships with the children that he had during his first marriage. It is unfair for me or my brother to openly submit him and my mother with this situation at this time.
I'm not saying that I don't understand the situation. I didn't know my biological father for the first 22 years of my life, and I was really anxious to met him. It sounds to me as though you are the one who wants the closure, and not your son. If he were really curious then he would post something himself.
I went without my biological father for twenty two years, and I don't know if I could ever be as close to him as I would have been had I knew him all those years, those moments are gone and they can never be retirieved.
I'm not saying that you will neverhear from Matthew, there is just more to this situation then meets the eye.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From sar
Saturday, February 24, 2007, 02:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
How do you know he wants to know his father? Why don't you leave your son to look for his father himself? If he really wants to know him, wouldn't he be the one looking for him? What makes you think his anger is because he doesn't know his father? Has a shrink told you that? If he is angry at you for your loose lifestyle when he was conceived, I see it as unlikely that you getting him in contact with his father now is going to help.(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Saturday, February 24, 2007, 08:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think your comment was uncalled for. My husband is 35 and just reunited with his father after 28 years. He wondered for years and years what had happened to his dad and if his dad wanted him. Don't judge this kid or the mother on assumption. You don't know if she has loose morals or not. That was the Family way back then everyone including your parents behaved in a manner that society at large would deem inconcieveable. It is absolutly the mothers right to look for the father of her child. It is also her right to take him to court for back child support if she wanted. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Sunday, February 25, 2007, 08:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
You do realize that you've just insulted almost everyone's father on this site. Your experience with your family does not justify your assumption of ours. There are any number of reasons why someone joined and any number of reasons why they stayed. Children raised in the family were no doubt the biggest victims, but so were many of the people who joined. Please don't forget that.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AnnaH
Sunday, February 25, 2007, 12:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
You self-righteous bitch. Do you think that by virtue of being a SGA you have the right to pass judgement on every FGA? You know nothing about the circumstances under which people joined or why they stayed(and I didn't call it stupidity either). May I remind you that as an SGA you at least have the luxury of blaming someone else, but FGAs have only themselves to blame. That in my view is a terrible punishment in itself.
This poor woman came on the site to find her son's father and you descend on her like a rabid wolf. I realize you're probably thirsting for blood but why don't you find a real criminal to attack.
I even more appalled that you are utterly unapologetic, when you have labeled our parents the enemy. However our parents may have contributed to our misery in the family is our cross to bear, not yours. If we choose to be angry with them we can, but if we choose to forgive them then what gives you the right to bear a grudge against them?
Why do I even waste my time trying to talk sense into you? You're obviously beyond reason. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AnnaH
Monday, February 26, 2007, 18:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, it seem I've done what I tried so hard not to do: marginalize your abuse and experiences within the cult. The thought that your abusers may be sorry for what they did is probably of little solace to you right now. I didn't mean to diminish your suffering, but to make the distinction that both of you have suffered(one more than the other, of course) but to be able at the end of the day lay that guilt on someone else, rather than yourself, is a luxury. Albeit a very small one.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 03:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I hate for this to look like I'm singling you out, but I have to disagree again. Having nobody to blame but yourself seems to be far more of a luxury. If you know you are to blame, and you did wrong, you can try and make amends. Victims can't ever patch things up on their own. We can only sit and desperately hope our oppressors one day realize that they caused us pain. I'm not discounting the difficulties of coping with the knowledge that you caused someone pain, but I say that's nothing compared to the pain of one who's been on the receiving end. The notion that someone who harmed me is the sorrier one, because he can't blame someone else, is insulting. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddie
Monday, February 26, 2007, 01:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
By virtue of being, by virtue of having the ability to, is a good enough reason for anyone to voice their opinion.
I don't know the specific reasons why different people joined TF. But overall, I see a few patterns only. I doubt there is one purely innocent FGA that lived in TF through the 70's 80's and 90's. You might have made peace with your parents, but others may have not. Some may have personal issues with your parents. Others may have issues with FGA's collectively. I don't see how you would have a right to dictate how others should feel about your parents. (reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Monday, February 26, 2007, 17:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Since when is prejudice acceptable in our society? Nevermind. It was not until recent years that we deemed it socially immoral to express such attitudes. Prejudice takes the acts of a few, or even a majority, and lables an entire group. This is incorrect, unfair, and insulting to those to whom such labels do not apply.
I appreciate your defense of free speech. I hope you will appreciate mine to criticize other's. I don't feel that I was dictating how she should feel about my parents, but criticizing the fact that her feelings about my and other's parents are brought on by a prejudice of FGAs as pedophile protectors, sympathesizers, perpetuators and not justified because she does not know my and other's parents' circumstances for joining or being in a cult. Neither does she know their actions inside of it.
I took her comments as a personal insult on my family and reacted in a hostile manner. Sar, I apologize for using the word bitch. That was certainly uncalled for.
I realize that I'm taking an unpopular stance in defending FGAs, especially since many of the participants on this site have not made peace with their parents and do hold all FGAs responsible in some way for their abuse. Perhaps I, by virtue of my age-bracket, am the one being self-righteous because my experience was not the same as most of yours. Because of the abuse you may have suffered at the hands of FGAs, prejudice towards FGAs is by all means understandable. It is not, however, excusable.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From sar
Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 01:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
Prejudice is acceptable. I subscribe to a fair few. For example, I have a prejudice peodophiles. That is a prejudice that acceptable in society. Ask anyone if they like peodophiles and you're likely to be told that they do not. There may be peodophiles that are lovely people, but I am predisposed not to think they're not. You may or may not find that excusable.
I am not saying that all family adults are peodophiles. That was merely an example of an acceptable prejudice. I believe my prejudice against family adults is justified, for the reasons given by Oddman below and on the fact that all adults in the family read the Mo letters. It doesn't matter whether you born at the time, your parents read the Mo letters, your parents decided to continue to follow what Berg said knowing how Ricky was brought up and knowing how Mene was treated. If your parents were not in the family at the time of the Mene series, there was still plenty of information around to alert them to the fact that the family was/is not a safe place to bring up a child. Your parents decided to continue to support someone who they knew to be a peodophile. The first purge was, I think, in '88. If your parents joined before '88, they knew. I know that much.
I think my opinions are fair and justified. I don't know what you consider "socially immoral", but I know that my opinions on this are socially acceptable and probably far more so than the opinions you hold on this. (reply to this comment) |
| | From jolifam77
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 20:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is a very significant point, and thank you for making it. I have to doubt how much conscience or even consciousness my parents and all the other adults had. I do know that we as children were forbidden from reading The Last State, and I never read it until reading excerpts from the Judgement of Justice Ward. Truly shocking. Don't know how they justified it in their heads other than they must have chalked it up to the fact (in their minds) that Berg was above everyone else, like God, and "who are we to question his ways..."
However, these people had lived in a free society before, they must have thought freely at some point. It just boggles my mind. In my mind, "the blood" of Mene is on all of them!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Monday, February 26, 2007, 23:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Categorization is not the best thing. I appreciate that. But at the same time, some form of categorization is neccessary for the sake of efficiency. A wild Zebra isn't going to say, "this lion is a predator, but that other lion might be vegetarian, so let's go introduce ourselves." In all honesty, I cannot name one single FGA I have had the displeasure of living with, that did not either, (save two who joined for the first time post 1998, and hadn't even read the redbook.)
1. Abuse a child (Physically, sexually, or mentally)
2. Abuse someone close to a child, i.e. friends, siblings, parents. (Physically, sexually, or mentally)
3. Instruct or solicit another child or adult to abuse a child or someone close to the child.
4. Finance a commune and leadership, while knowing them to be abusive.
5. Voice support of abusive activity.
6. Defend an abuser, denied an instance of abuse.
7. Correct or punish a victim.
8. Know of abuse, or past abuse, yet ignored or denied it.
9. Heard a report of abuse from the victim, yet failed to inform justice.
10. Willingly omitted from a child's education, information that would protect the child from abuse, i.e. laws regarding childrens rights. How to contact police.
Fact. I personally lived in a number of homes through the 80's and 90's.
Fact. I personally have met a few hundred FGA's.
Fact. I found not one, who could be deemed innocent.
Maybe you are unaware of some of the older letters. Maybe you haven't had the displeasure of being a 4 year old boy being told your "mommy has to sleep with mr. fujiwara to spread the love of jesus". Maybe you weren't that 3 year old thumbing through pornographic letters. Maybe you weren't read the mene story, or the girl who wouldn't, or flirty fishes. What I do know, is that these were the letters we lived by. You could not have been a family member past your "babe" status, and not know that this was an abusive environment. Whether abuse was practiced in a particular home or not, you knew that the ideology was abusive. And being that members frequently moved from home to home, the logic of possibility would dictate that members would have had to have been exposed to situations where they would have witnessed the abuse of minors. I have lived in very few large homes. My mother was a single mother, with a impaired child. Nobody wanted her. She'd live in a fringe home, and provision, fundraise, and it'll all go to the bosses. Yet in all these fringe homes, abuse was prevalent. There are first hand accounts from the major homes as well. The chances that one hopped only from non-abusive environment to non-abusive environment, and missed all the abusive mo letters, and never heard about abuse, is practically nil. If you were a non-abusive adult, some abuse victim would likely have told you that abuse occured, and you likely told them to fucking forgive their transgressors, or it was meant i love, and then told their abusers that they needed to have a heart to heart talk with you. I agree, prejudice is inexcusable. Bring me either an innocent FGA, or a truly repentant FGA, and I will show you I can be very tolerant and unprejudiced.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From vacuous
Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 14:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
While the above is rhetorically resonant, the problem is when it generalises the concept of "abuse" as some sort of absolute given.
The thing is that values are relative to time, place, and society. FGA's in the family who practiced these 'abuses' (however unlikely) often actually believed that they had moral justification for their deeds and did not ...and still will not interpret what they did as 'abuse.'
Its called brainwashing.
If you can get FGA's to agree with you on what "abuse" means, good luck, your job is almost done.
Point in case; when Angela died through Rickys act of "justice" over the "abuse" he had seen and suffered...she did not see what she did "wrong"--what he thought was abuse she honestly believed to be a Godly, loving upbringing...a dramatic example of the clash of value interpretation.
Don't misread me and think that I don't agree with your definition of abuse, where I have a hard time in agreeing is whether or not all participants had a guilty mind and intended to harm.
If you took a "guilty mind" as a criteria I would imagine you would find a lot more innocent FGA's.
The worst FGA's were the FGA's who abused knowing full well that what they were doing is abuse.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddie
Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 22:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
I've thought of that, Vacuous. I didn't touch on that, due to my reasoning that "intent to harm" is rather inconsequential, when one has been "harmed without intent". The wounds are still there, deep, gaping, bleeding. As far as I know, ignorance is no defense. If one was unaware of the child's age, he may have some form of defense. That one was not aware that statutory rape was a crime, does not exonerate him.
If we were to consider those who had no guilty mind inoccent, should we exonerate the followers of Aum, Jihadists, all religious extremists? I know this is an extreme question. I know I'm stretching it. But how far would you go? They may have been innocent in their minds, but they are in fact, not innocent.
I also find it hard to believe that one could truly consider TF teachings as "godly and loving". Any person in their right mind must have felt a twinge of guilt when raising the paddle. When raising the garden hose. When shoving that soap bar down that childs throat. That is why the "It hurts me more" phrase was neccessary. Leadership knew the members applying such torturous techniques would feel conscience pangs, and they built that into the procedure. By acknowledging that feeling during the act, they made it less neccessary to question it. That phrase and hug was for the administering adult, not the child. It was meant to make that FGA feel less guilty. By involving the lower tier members in criminal activity, and making them feel guilt at some point, they built a system of denial. No FGA could leave, and then act against TF, because they were guilty too. I don't believe anyone could set up such calculated safeguards and back up measures without malicious intent.
I agree, the FGA's who knew and enjoyed it were the worst of the lot. That doesn't make those who allowed themselves to be deceived, used and manipulated, any less guilty. Less guilty than leadership and others who knew, yes. Less guilty of their own crimes, no.
It is the responsibility of a grown adult who is a member of society, to study and know the laws of the land, and abide by them. If they did not know, or chose to act beyond the boundaries of the law, they are guilty of an offense, whether their intents were pure or not.
Further, if you read the mo letters, you would have been aware that many of the practical applications of doctrine were illegal, else why would we be instructed to mask and veil, to distort the truth. Why would it be neccessary to be deceivers yet true, if there was no guilt? That letter has to be the greatest admission of guilt ever.
I maintain that it was nearly impossible to have been a full time member of TF through the 70's 80's and 90's, and have been oblivious to criminal activity, and child abuse. (reply to this comment) |
| | From vacuous
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 05:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oddie I am in no way suggesting that we should "exonerate followers of aum, jihadists and religious extremists" for what they do. I too see the effects as being devastating and abusive. What I am saying, and what is even more disturbing and painful to the victims, is that many religious extremists and jihadists actually believe in the correctness of what they do. This is one reason why intolerance breeds intolerance, and the society that gives rise to these sorts of actions is deemed to be diametrically opposed to ours and dangerous.
Your "it-hurts-me-more-than-it-hurts-you" example shows that when a person does something that may harm someone, that person usually tries to justify and legitimise it. When a voluntary soldier fights and kills an enemy on a battlefield or drops a bomb on a city he may say to himself that he is committing this little bit of evil to achieve a greater good (helping his mates-in-arms or his country)...and maybe it is true. We obviously see no greater good achieved through the methods of abuse members of the Family used and view it as a one way street, however the exact same mechanism is at work.
The average cult member who abused through paddling (discounting sadistically cruel and innovative "spankers")may genuinely have believed that he was achieving a greater good in the child through the act; many ignorant parents today still ascribe to that belief.
What is more, for many centuries the children themselves most likely did not view a switch on the wrist by a headmaster to be an abusive response to class misbehaviour.
So long as you are converted to the premise on which the family is founded and actually view the MO letters as the "word of God" (that should not be doubted or questioned) you will use those letters and not your own logic or the law as the central determinator of right and wrong. So long as the actual intentional abusers could justify their actions through the mechanism of the "word" the other members would never even think that what was being done was wrong. Many FGA's themselves were 'abused' and never interpreted what was being done to them as abuse.
No matter how incredible it is to grasp, especially as a victim, I have no doubt that many cult FGAs gave paddlings (some SGAs as well) and sexually abused children while actually believing that what they were doing was only for the good of the child involved. If these central molestors could feel this way how much more the FGA's who were not centrally involved?
Based on this I do think that a full time member of the family in the 70's 80's and 90's could have been oblivious to criminal activity and child abuse precisely because they would not have thought of the activity as criminal or understood activities we deem 'abusive' as being such (by stating this I dont mean the obvious extreme activities of adult-child sex or obviously sadistic punishments which I know a few of my teachers actually and actively tried to stop).
This is in no way to deny what happened as being anything other than abuse but I prefer to make small yet critical distinctions between those who were intentionally abusive, "unintentionally" abusive, and the rest, who, though extremely and utterly deluded, cannot be called abusers and were therefore innocent (even in the legal sense where failure to report a sexual offence occuring to someone else is not considered to be criminal no matter how morally objectionable this may be).
This is why the family is so rotten at the core, its like asking a Nazi Germany under Hitler to recognise that the holocaust was wrong. First you have to redefine their value base and society and set of beliefs and then you will get an apology. As it is now they probably want you to apologise to them...adding insult to injury for victims.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 14:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
If someone intended to do a deed and that deed is objectively abusive, that person intended to an abusive deed. It doesn't matter that the person that does the deed does not define that deed as abusive. It is and can only be judged objectively.
As far as them being innocent in the eyes of the law, certain persons in relation to children are under a legal duty to protect and rescue the child where it would be objectively unreasonable for them not to do so. Parents fall within that category in many countries. In some civil law countries, such as France, there is a legal duty to rescue any person where it is objectively unreasonable not to do so. Many people in the family would be guilty under this principle.
As I mentioned early most people within the family went to devotions and had meetings where they would have been discussing plans to commit - what are objectively considered - abusive deeds. In doing so they are guilty are conspiracy to commit that deed, even if the deed is not committed. If the deed is committed, they would be guilty of the deed as an accomplice.
My criminal law is rusty, but I am sure there could also be some criminal liability for financial supporting the incitement and commission of abusive acts. There would be jurisdictional issues on this.
As far as your claim that they are innocent because they were deluded, the criminal law does of course provide a plea of insanity, but that too carries its own consequences and I doubt the majority of family members were legally insane. If they are found insane, the judgement would read guilty but insane.
That is the position in the UK and in much of the common wealth. I can't imagine it would vary very drastically across countries. So, from what I know of the law, they are all guilty of something.
Morality is more subjective and whether or not they are morally culpable would depend, I think, entirely on what any particular person passing judgement considered morally reprehensible behaviour.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Need for clarity
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 06:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think it would clarify matters in this discussion to ask what you mean by "guilty mind" and "intent to harm".
If someone had intent to beat a child (call it rod of correction for these purposes, as the adults then would have a euphemism that would help them do it with more conviction)/molest a child (love-up time)/terrorize a child (training), but thought that it was a good thing to do, do you consider that person not to have a "guilty mind"?
If they intentionally did one of those abusive acts, while not believing it abuse, are you defining that as "unintentionall abusive"? That has not gotten a lot of abusive parents off the hook with Child Protective Services.
Regarding "intent to harm", I think the more relevant question is "intent to carry out the act".
The Family and other jihadists introduce this twist of intending to do a certain thing while believing it to be good.
Sometimes this might result in their belief that it does not harm the target (or a more sophisticated reasoning that realizes it causes temporal/apparent harm ("more than it hurts you" is an acknowledgment of inflicting hurt) but believes that the action nevertheless has a value beyond what we can observe as a human reaction of pain, which is trivialized and invalidated). Other times it involves a decision that the "harm" is to people that do not matter or who deserve it.
For the sold-out people who were involved but managed to somehow be oblivious the actions were abusive, there was a point at which they turned off or let fade away their previous knowledge that the acts were wrong. Willful ignorance, not a great defense.
You mention failure to report a sexual offense occuring to someone. However, there are certain people who because of their position are "mandated reporters". Each FG who taught us, "babysat", was a shepherd, "counseled" us, etc., etc. -- would analogize this way. If the people who set the rules for "mandated reporting" gave any thought to kids being raised communally, where the usual "mandated reporters" never get access but rather those roles are managed very differently with usually a rotating cast of characters carrying out the Family multitasking -- it would be much clearer.(reply to this comment) |
| | From vacuous
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 08:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I will clarify, I hope this helps...
My first point concerning "abusive intent" (did I even mention 'guilty mind'?) was a subjective analysis and I even infered myself that the acts perpertrated by religious extremists were nothing short of abuse when looking objectively at the act itself.
I first tried to show from a sociological perspective (with the example of the soldiers shooting at an enemy in war time) that intent to harm is often given justification through honest and innocent belief (often derived at through brainwashing or misrepresented facts) in a greater good being achieved through the harm wrought. I infered that the same mechanism was at work with many cult abusers who genuinely did, what can objectively and legally be considered as abuse, but with the same innocent and misplaced conviction in the ultimate goodness of the act and its long term benefit.
The point is not to excuse these FGA's abuse for being anything less but to perhaps create an understanding (should you choose to do so) in viewing certain FGA's as being "subjectively innocent" rather than "maliciously and intentionally guilty". Oddie himself conceded such a distinction.
What I was trying to do was gradiate things a bit from what I determined to be an overgeneralised statement by oddie and which I felt needed a more careful and considered dissection (his premise claims that no adult could have lived through the 70's 80's or 90's and still have been deemed innocent).
My first point (as stated above) was that perhaps if you were of a forgiving nature you could deem some FGA's to be "subjectively innocent." Do not adduce that I meant that they were legally innocent.
However, even within what can be deemed as "the legally guilty" there there are critical distinctions to be made in that even the abusers themselves can be legally categorised into those who had malicious intent towards abusing and those who had innocent intent and who nevertheless abused. The first requires an intent towards harm while the second merely requires an intent towards the act. In U.K. criminal law these criteria are often critical in determining the seriousness of a crime (e.g. GBH with intent under s.18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1968 and s. 20 GBH (without intent).
Finally there is another important distinction between legal and moral guilt (with different standards dependant on the nation in which you reside). I only gave this a cursory overview but prima facie it would appear ludicrous to hold all FGA's living in the family in the 70's 80's and 90's to be criminally liable in law.
Since UK was brought up...in the UK it is the law that there is no "good samaritan" principle and if I see someone drowning I am under no obligation to help him. Furthermore if I see someone being raped I am under no obligation to report this abuse to the authorities (as may be the case in France..as sars mentioned).
Originally the English criminal law only punished those who caused a prohibited result by a positive act. But eventually it has come to punish those who fail to act, when a duty to act can be implied and there is a "duty of care". Even though it would appear that parents (who know of the abuse their children are suffering) owe such a duty to their child, it is not as clear cut as one would like, esp. in a Kibbutz-type environment. Also the law of abuse has changed radically since the 90's ( e.g. where spanking a child was still legal).
One horrific fact I learned the other day (i admit I have only done crude research and may be wrong on this) is that up until the 2003 Sexual Offences Act, there was scant protection for children under criminal law and the only charge that could have been brought for acts, such as having sex in front of children, or encouraging children to have sex with each other, or showing them sexual material; was "outrage to public decency" (requiring 5 members of the public to voice their 'outrage').
This would mean, at least following U.K. law, that pre-2003 many FGA's were not as guilty under criminal law as perhaps we would like them to be...despite their failure to report abuse. The nature of law requires us to look at individuals by a case by case basis. General presumptions of guilt are incompatible in at least the accusatorial system which presumes innocence until guilt can be evidentially proved before a court of law.
Subsequently I would say there are a number of FGA's who have both a subjective and legal innocence and I couldn't, at least in the legal sense, securely abide with the premise that "all FGA's who resided in the family during the 70's 80's and 90's were criminally liable.
The final determinator for guilt, is of course morality. If Oddie deems all FGA's to be morally culpable then he is entitled to to so and arguing is quite futile and unnecessary on this point. (reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 10:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
You have clearly misunderstood s.18 and 20 of the OAPA and the legal meanings of intent. In both offences there must be either wounding or grievous bodily harm to the victim. The defendant must have intended to do grievous bodily harm when they did the act that caused grievous bodily harm to the other person. The s.20 offence requires only the prosecution to prove that the grievous bodily harm was inflicted recklessly. Both offences use the word malicious, which is interpreted by the courts to mean reckless. The differences in with intent and without intent do not mean guilty intent and innocent intent. The criminal law is not concerned (except where a plea of insanity is issued) with whether the defendant thought the act was bad or thought what they were doing was not harmful. If you mean to break someone's arm and you break their arm, you will be guilty of gbh with intent (s.18). If you mean shake their hand, but you do so in such a way that you end up breaking their arm, where you (i) either do not realise that your way of shaking hands breaks arms and the reasonable person of the age and sex (and something else, but I can't remember) of the defendant would have realised or (ii) you do realise but take the risk anyway, then you would be guilty of gbh without intent (s.20). I will admit I used a very poor example, but I don't have an imagination. The Privy Council and the House of Lords are at odds over what the meaning of reckless intent (as in s.20) should be, but is only as regards to what attributes of the defenant should be attributed to the reasonable person. Neither suggest that the defendant who breaks someone's arm, meaning to break their arm, but thinking that it would be good for that person to break their arm, would be guilty of anything less than the s.18 offence (unless they successfully pleaded insanity). They meant to break the victim's arm. It does not matter that they were innocent in their own minds when they did it.
As far as the Sexual Offences Act goes, you are mistaken there too. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 was intended to be a compilation of the law of sex offences. Some new offences were introduced in the act, but the majority was merely a codification of the existing law. (reply to this comment) |
| | From vacuous
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 12:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was in a hurry and you caught me out...however...
The example adequately backed up the purpose of my statement...and I quote "the first (s18) requires an intent towards harm while the second (s20) merely requires an intent towards the act." The problem is... that ss.20 can require "an intent towards wounding" meaning there is an intent to harm ...however an intent towards wounding is not the same as an "intent to causing GBH."
When I said that ss.18 requires "an intent towards harm" whereas ss.20 requires "an intent towards the act" I made it clear both require the element of intent...I said that both were "legally guilty". The clear distinction is the type of intent. Your example of "breaking an arm without thinking it does the victim harm" has caught me out but it was not what I intended to demonstrate. The example I was referring to was, say, if I give a boy a paddling intending to mildly correct him (perhaps unwittingly breaking his finger when he puts his hand in the way)...or if I give him a paddling with an intent to continue until he has a bloody bum (an intent to do GBH harm which will fall under ss.18).
In defining the "legally guilty" I was trying to show that the law makes critical distinctions in the manner of intent ...and the abusers themselves, that was the point I was trying to demonstrate.
I concede my former sociological exposition spilled into the clarity of this so you probably rightly misread this and thought that my example meant to demonstrate that if a person is innocent in his own mind he is less likely to be deemed guilty in law if he does extreme abuse. This would have been incorrect.
The confusion was the part where I mentioned "abusers themselves can be legally categorised into those who had malicious intent towards abusing and those who had innocent intent and who nevertheless abused". Critical is to read "and who nevertheless abused." While both ss.20 and ss.18 confusingly have "malicious" in their provisions...one is malicious as towards wounding and the other is malicious as towards causing GBH. By saying "innocent" I didn't clarify that I meant..what I meant was a person not intending to do the GBH act but whose actions spilled over into GBH.
There are many examples of this in the Family..where the FGA either did not forsee GBH harm or forsaw that their action may have caused some harm but did not expect it to be so serious as to amount to..say, a GBH (as with serious psychological harm) R v. Mowatt.
My point was to show legal abusers themselves can be distinguished by intention even though the abuse suffered might have been the same.
As for the SOA while you are correct in that it consolidated previous law on the topic...if you read it almost all the new offences created are those pertaining to children (see ss.10, ss.11, and ss.12).(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From info on intent
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 11:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Mens rea basically means a guilty mind and refers to the state of mind of the accused at the time the actus reas (act of the crime) is committed. Mens rea and actus reus must exist at the same time. For example, the burglar knew they were going to deprive the rightful owner of their property before the burglary. Nearly all criminal offences require a demonstration of mens rea. Cases that don't require mens rea are known as strict liability offences.
Mitigation is the plea made to reduce a sentence because of personal, family or other mitigating circumstances. Mitigation does not remove the sentence, but is used by the defence to reduce its severity, usually because of the co-operation of the offender, the improper conduct of others, or any external influences that may have induce the offender to commit the crime.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From mulling
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 13:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
It seems to me the "guilty mind" that is referred to does not have to do with somebody having feelings of guilt, which I think some people are interpreting it as. The "guilty mind" is the mind that intends to commit the "actus reus".
To take an extreme example, the 9/11 highjackers would never be said to lack a "guilty mind" due to their belief that they on a glorious mission for good. The intent to take the life of those people, however "good" an act it is, constituted a "guilty mind". It is irrelevant if they were not wringing their hands with feelings of "guilt".
Interestingly, the wikipedia link someone posted also says this:
"There are four general classes of mens rea (the words used may vary from one state to another and from one definition to another) but the substance is:
- Intentionally ; (purposely)
- Knowingly ;
- Recklessly sometimes termed willful blindness which may have a different interpretation in the United States; or
- Negligently . "
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From .
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 12:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's so hard for me to excetp that our parents either agreed with this as they read it or for some had cognitive disonence .
Official Family statements(1) in response to allegations of child sexual abuse that occurred before 1986 conflict with Berg’s descriptions of sexualized behavior between himself and five-year-old Davida Kelley. In fact, Berg’s own statements(2) about allegations of child sexual abuse are inconsistent with his descriptions of fondling Davida Kelley while drawing attention to the role of his penis in their adult/child interaction.
In the following exerpt from “Happy Birthday Dady—Happy Birthday Family!” (#1338), World Services provided a verbatim transcript of Berg’s video-taped interaction with Davida on February 18, 1981:
Berg: (119). I'M WARMING MY HANDS ON A COU'LE OF NICE BOSOMS. RIGHT? Bosoms sounds so nice & delicious & luscious & squeezy & nice & lovely! (Davida: Do you want to make some?) You want to make some? Right now? Right here? In front of the camera? (Davida: Yes!) Some love? Oh my! This girl is gettin' there fast! Well, where is she sitting? (Davida: I can't tell. On a penie!) Oh, my goodness. Shhh! You're not supposed to use these words on camera, it's against the censorship! She's sitting on Grandpa! (Davida: I thought they were fucking, actually fucking an angel!) We're not supposed to use that word on the camera, but you heard it--but you didn't hear it--) anyhow, it's an angel!
According to Berg’s 1988 statement on child abuse, charges of inappropriately sexualized behavior between adults and children in The Family were based on practices described in the Davidito Book occurring between Sara Davidito and Karen Zerby’s son, Rick Rodriguez. Berg explained this material as “only the writer’s account of her own personal experiences & opinions,” adding that “[It] is by no means any kind of policy-setting or instructional text.”(3) However, in May 1980 he says just the opposite to Family disciples in the ML “Sex Jewels” (#919, Compiled in May):
Berg: (29.) I THOUGHT THE WAY WE LIVE IS THE WAY YOU WERE LIVING. We have a little orgy now & then, we don't publicise it or do it in front of reporters, although we have had it in front of a few guests! As long as it's all in the Family, why not? I haven't hidden Davidito [EDITED: "see the new edition of The Story of Davidito book"], I have made him an example to the whole world! I haven't hidden all of our exploits in FFing & sex--I have told you about all of them. I don't think I've left any of them out, none! Why the hell are you hiding yours?
There is little doubt that Berg put his imprimateur on Family publications that were later described as speculative rather than instructive or as outright examples of pedophilic behavior. In the “The Test of Faith—And Time with Kids” (#1281, Oct. 11, 1981), the following conversation occurs between Sara [Davidito] Kelley, Maria, and Berg on the subject of introducing Davida Kelley to sitting in Berg’s lap like “the big girls do.”
Berg: (4) IF YOU WANT TO START TEACHING THE COURSE, YOU’VE GOTTA TAKE THE TEST! (Sara [Davidito]: Yes! Oh Lord!) And those are the tests. I mean, the Lord doesn’t let you teach it unless you can live it! That’s why I never tried to be a saint, I knew I couldn’t live it, so I never taught holiness or saintliness!—Ha! I just teach sex & that’s something I know I can live! Ha! (Sara: What a calling, yes!) PTL!
Berg: (9) THE TROUBLE WITH PEOPLE, THEY HAVE SUCH A FUNNY IDEA OF WHAT’S BAD! (Maria: yes!) Including a lot of good things that the Lord created to enjoy, like sex! XXX! (Sara: Hallelujah!) Mmm! Just lookin’ at you girls I can hardly keep my hands off you! The Lord gave us that hunger when we see you to want to get ahold of you & love you & kiss you & fuck ya! PTL!—So He could have lots more babies for his Kingdom!
Berg: (12) WHO WANTS TO SIT IN MY LAP?...
(14) Come Davida, come Honey. You didn’t get your lovin’ this morning. She likes to be here too. Don’t stick your knee on it though, Honey, that’s pretty hard for it. I love you. You gotta get up like this. I’ll show you how the big girls do, see? They get up like this. Now is that good? Do you like that, huh? She’s not sure if she likes it! Ha!
(15) OH SHE’S STAYING! SHE MUST LIKE IT! How’s that, huh? Give you a little ride. Feels good! It’s good exercise for me too! ILY! XXX! You smell so good! So pretty & so sexy! TYL! Hallelujah!
There is a contradiction between what Berg tells Family disciples he is doing with children in his household and what Family officials later describe as Father David’s “broach[ing] the subject of whether each and every sexual contact between an adult and minor was in fact necessarily harmful.”(4) This contradiction may be explained by Karen Zerby’s insistence that what Berg described in the paragraphs cited above constitutes “sweet affection.” In an internal document to Family disciples, Zerby explained that adult/child sexual intimacy behavior such as Berg teaching a five-year-old a seated coital position is not viewed as inherently wrong or harmful, despite awareness that such behavior is seen as pedophilic behavior by the System.
129. I'm sorry that we couldn't come out a little more forthrightly in the Child Abuse Statement, bringing out the point that all sex between adults & minors is not bad, sinful, harmful or abusive. However, the problem was that we didn't know how much we could say without putting the Family at legal risk. We wouldn't have been afraid to admit more if we had known we could do it legally, but we had to be careful and try to protect the Family, & since at the time we were unable to get any expert advice on that subject, we had to do the best we could.
130. The Lord may be forcing us to come out more with our full beliefs on this matter & to take a stand for it. Of course, this is what we have talked about & debated for months, how much should we say, how much could we say etc. The way we present this is very delicate, because on the one hand, we can get in big trouble with the System, & on the other hand, if we handle it the wrong way, there is the danger that the Family may feel that we are saying that the Letters were wrong & that what Dad had to say in those Letters was not right & was a mistake. We definitely don't believe that & we can't afford to give that impression, so we certainly have to avoid that at all costs. We certainly don't want to say that the Letters were wrong, or to say anything that will infer that the Letters were wrong, because they weren't wrong.
131. I'm really concerned about this subject, not only how to present it to the public, but also because our JETTS & Teens [children 11 years and older] seem to be overwhelmingly getting the idea that all of our sexual freedoms have been wrong. Many of them already have that idea, that the Letters must have been wrong & Dad must have been wrong all the time. Their attitudes & what they're saying now are indicating this -- that all the sexual experiences that they've had in the past have been wrong. We're hearing it from all quarters, & if we can't put something in print about it, I don't know how we're going to dispel these wrong ideas.
132. We may eventually have to come out & just say, "Look, the Letters were not wrong, & loving acts of affection, even those with a sexual tone to them, are not wrong in God's eyes. However, they're not right for us now for several reasons. Number One is because in the eyes of the System they're illegal, & therefore we must not do them any more. Number two; they usually have not born very good fruit. -- Not because of the act itself, but because a relationship between younger people & older ones seems to be too distracting. We've found that relationships between teens & adults for the most part do not seem to bear very good fruit in their lives & ministries. Number three, because of their misunderstandings about the subject, younger people may not be ready for any kind of sexual involvement until they are older, because they have a lot more things to learn, they have a lot of other things to concentrate on & it doesn't seem that it bears very good fruit. So we do not do it & its banned and forbidden.
133. However, that does not mean that loving affection between two people, regardless of age, provided it's not hurtful & both parties like it & want it, is wrong in God's eyes. But in the present moral climate of the World today it is wrong for us as it hurts the Work of God. "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient!" (1Cor6: 12)
134. I feel we need to somehow explain to our JETTS and Teens that love & loving affection is not wrong. As it says in the Letters, if it's not hurtful, if it's loving, then it's okay. Of course, having actual intercourse with a child wouldn't be okay as it wouldn't be loving, but a little fondling & sweet affection is not wrong in the eyes of God, & if they have experienced the same in the past they weren't "abused." We need to somehow help them understand that these things aren't wrong & the Letters about them aren't wrong, it's just because of the System's very strong restrictions on such things & the severe punishment that they hand out for it, it is no longer fitting & proper for us to do it.
135. Of course, I realise there is a certain risk in declaring that there's nothing wrong with it in God's eyes, & we've been hesitant to publicly proclaim that. However, I don't know that we could get in any more hot water than we're already in by saying that we believe that there's nothing wrong with loving affection in ideal circumstances & ideal times. I'd be surprised if legally they could prosecute you for what you believe if you don't act on it. Even if the whole rest of the World believes that sexual fondling of children is wrong & we say we believe it's okay, but we don't do it, I don't think they could do anything to you.
136. It's an explosive hot subject, but maybe the Lord is going to force us to take a stand on it eventually & be truthful about it, as we have been about everything else, because the Devil has just got the whole World hood-winked about this! All of a sudden everything that has anything to do with sexual overtones is completely vile & evil & wicked, even though many of them produced very good experiences & were helpful & sweet. But it doesn't matter to the System whether it was good or whether it was selfish & lustful & bad, to them it's all bad now.
137. Are we going to just go along with that & promote that idea & continue to be part of the Devil's great deception & lie just because we're afraid of what might happen if we tell the Truth? We haven't held back the full Truth on any other point that I can think of. We're even coming out and telling the truth about the Jews now. This is about the only subject where we're really going along with the System, we're playing along with them, we're acting like we believe what we did was wrong, because we have changed, and stopped doing it. In other words, we're saying by inference that we do believe it's wrong, because look, we don't do it any more. No wonder our teens are getting the idea that it was all evil. --Of course they're getting this idea because by our actions & rules, without a full explanation, that's what we're saying!
138. Perhaps we could at least write something explaining this to our own kids. Of course, our enemies will get it fairly quickly & will use it against us, but maybe we need to take that risk for the sake of our kids & the Truth. I just feel that we need to explain to our kids that any experience they may have had along these lines, if it was loving & if it was desired, was not wrong. We need to show them that even if in some case the experience for them wasn't so great, that by comparison to what goes on in the System, it still wasn't "abuse."
139. It's a very explosive & sensitive issue, & could get us in trouble, but I'm very concerned, as are many of you, about the effect it will have on the Family if we don't say something. Of course, by saying something we risk incurring more trouble from the System, but in some ways I feel that it may be worth the risk, because the System hates us no matter what we say or don't say. Not bringing up the issue is going to make them love us or accept us. They're out to get us, & no matter what we do or don't do they'll still fight us as long as we exist if we're witnessing & living for Jesus. So maybe it's more important to take the risk in order to strengthen the faith of our JETTS and teens
SUMMIT '93 MAMA JEWELS! --#2. For Summit Use Only!
LOVE, AFFECTION & SEX!
CONCERNS ABOUT CA [CHILD ABUSE] QUESTIONS:
PRESENTING IT TO THE PUBLIC & EXPLAINING IT TO THE FAMILY
Footnotes:
1. Our Replies to Allegations of Child Abuse, June 1992.
2. Child Abuse?! An Official Statement, December 1988.
3. Op. Cit.
4. Our Replies to Allegations of Child Abuse, June 1992.
Reposted from exfamily
http://www.exfamily.org/chatbbs/genx/index.html
Berg thought She liked it as she didn't move. What they need to get around their thick heads is that we were funkin terrified, at any time , for almost anything we were in risk of being violently assaulted, by any member.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Monday, February 26, 2007, 18:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I didn't want to make this personal. I don't know much about what they did. I can't explain what they did or why they did it, nor would I expect you to understand. I stand by everything I have said. My parents are good people and many who were in the family will attest to that. They do have serious moral culpability, some of which I think is unwarranted. That's up to those they may have harmed and them to judge, not me. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From 1whowasthere
Monday, February 26, 2007, 19:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
I was harmed.
I have firsthhand knowledge of harm to others.
Of course, the lovely Anna you are sucking up to probably knows, as a fledgling systemite, that none of the abuse will ever get justice, so she should just continue to bask in being cared for.
The victims are either too dead or too much in pain, and if they were not, the judicial system is not prepared and was not created to help those like us.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Oddman
Monday, February 26, 2007, 23:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
"They are my parents. Of course I am on their side, and will be no matter what they do."
I envy that... That ability to say those words. Never knew my dad, step dad attempted to take my life, mom was helplessly weak. Older brother is impaired for life, due a childhood wound. I slept naked paired with another naked toddler until age 6 in 1988. I saw adults having sex in the same room or bed until around 11 years old. I was exorcised. Labelled possessed, rotten apple, threatened to be given away for adoption, frequently beaten, and denied an education. I was constantly kept within the boundaries of the communes, disallowing normal social interaction and development. One many occasions, I was split away from friends I made, because they were considered a "bad influence". I was locked in a closet frequently. The earlier years, my parents did not pay their NHS bills, so medical attention was unavailable unless I was staying in a home where the shepherds had a son near my age. I have a disorder in my knuckles because we cut of rehab short when I broke my bones at 5 years old. The lord didn't seem to come through, cause I can't bend my right pinkie, and I need to manually realign my fingers a few times every day. It's painful when the temperature drops. I have bad hearing as my ears were damaged during an instance of "correction". I'm aquaphobic after an instance involving water during correction. I was left outside sitting in my pyjamas in snow, for hours, until I "repented". I have a weak spot in my back, from an instance of manual labor at age 13. And these are only the issues I can discuss in a nonchalant manner, at 4PM, without a double Glenfiddich or Bookers in my right hand. I was physically and mentally brutalized, broken. Any personality, any iota of self, creativity, butchered, tortured, stepped on, crushed, murdered. My childhood was stolen from me. I never was the little innocent naive child that believed in Santa Claus and Peter Pan. From as far as I can remember, I was a cynical, wounded, unhappy being. Maybe you can understand why, it's hard for me to be on my parents side, no matter what they do.(reply to this comment) |
| | From figaro
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 12:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
wow, you sound as bad as me. everything you mentioned happened to me. also, locked in basments chained to beds, refused food or water for days, beaten naked in front of the entire home, duct tape wrapped around my head to keep me from being able to speak, and im not even gonna go into the sick sexual shit!
i have a joint condition that will paralize me later in life that my mother KNEW about, but didnt do anything for (and dont tell me she couldnt have, because my little brother has it too and HE got medical attention) i have a SEVERLY fucked up back due to beatings and injurys, my my teeth are FUCKED due to lack of care for them. the list goes on and on.
however, i have learned to.. i wouldnt say i have FORGIVEN my mother, though i would like to. but i have learned to put it in the past. she was a victom to my (non biological) father (not mathew, he is my step) and she was able to break free of that and leave LONG before i was. plus, i wasnt with her most the time, it was either my father or other FGAs that did these things to me.(reply to this comment) |
| | From AnnaH
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 06:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
You say you envy me, but you begrudge me my experiences just like most of the people on the site. I know it contradicts your constructed reality that all children in the family were victims and all adults were abusers. But this was my reality. This was my childhood, these were my memories, my experiences. Maybe it doesn't compare to yours but that doesn't make it any less valid. I'm sick of not being able to speak about it for fear of offending the rest of you. I refuse to feel bad about it.
I sought to be objective and I chose to represent an underrepresented group in the interest of fairness. I knew many good people in the family that took care of me and loved me and never wished me harm, to not speak for them would have been a disgrace and act of disloyalty.
This whole thread has left me with a feeling of overwhelming disappointment. I'm disappointed in myself first of all, for unwittingly inviting an attack on my parents. I'm disappointed that more people haven't spoken up in defense of FGAs they knew to be good people, perhaps because there is no one to defend, or perhaps because they are afraid to contradict the status quo. I'm especially disappointed that people seem to have aligned themselves with a coward who attacks my parents rather than the point I was trying to make. Maybe you've proven my parents guilty, and you could prove everyone I knew, everyone whose goodness I had faith in, was guilty, but you will not prove what I said to be wrong.
Obviously, you are unreceptive to my point of view, and that is understandable. I'm not telling you to forgive them, or how you should deal with your pain. But I won't sit back and indulge you in behavior I believe to be unfair to others.
I apologize for anyone I have harmed or appeared unsympathetic to. I assure you I am enormously sympathetic, and I hope you will understand why my sympathies do not end with you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From rainy
Friday, March 02, 2007, 02:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
I understand where you're coming from, Anna. The same thing happens to me. I think when people hear us say OUR parents were not abusive, they take offense, and think that we don't believe everything that happened to them is as bad as they say it is. Also, people who were in these horrible situations can't believe that some of us were never in situations like that, and the unfairness of it makes them furious - maybe they feel that we're taking away some of their right to be angry. We all have a right to be angry no matter what kind of parents we had...for the reasons Conan listed somewhere in this thread. But some people who suffered so much feel that we're taking away from their experiences when we describe ours. I've just come to the place where I defer to the ones in the most pain, because they need to let it out more. Me defending my parents or saying that my upbringing wasn't what theirs was doesn't help them. They need to vent. We all do actually.(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 02:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't understand what you said that we will not prove wrong. I don't think I really know what point you are trying to me. I understood your original point to be that I should not hold and express the view I have. I believe you said it was inexcusable. You have not shown my, and many other people's, views to be unreasonable. You have indicated that your own are (when you said that you would side with your parents no matter what they did).
For the sake of clarity, and I am only speaking for myself on this, I will point out that I have not claimed that all children were abused. What I did claim is that all adults were aware of abuse. Have you asked your parents about the Mene series, about the All Things Dream, about the Davidito Book, about Heaven's Girl, about all the Mo letters that encouraged people to beat children, to have sex with children and about the victor programmes, the "schools", the marrying kids off at 14/15?
As I said before, many peodophiles are good people, if you leave aside the peodophilia. In fact most serial killers are good people as far as their friends and family are concerned, there only flaw is that go around killing people. Many family members are good people, except that they covered up, condoned, encouraged, and perpetuated child abuse. I'll shut up now as I don't know what your point was, so I'm probably missing the point.(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 12:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I get where you are coming from. I would be hurting if someone spoke up about something one of my parents did to them (I truly believe that no one has a specific thing either of my parents did to them beyond probable instances of overly harsh discipline). However everything that has been said about all of those who devoted years to the group being culpable is 100 percent accurate. Which is more my parents would agree. It was only after the Ricky situation that they really came to grips with the immensity of the destructiveness of the environment. My Dad has on more than one occasion asked if I wanted to come over and chew him out (an offer I declined). It is also true that anyone involved as group spokespeople to the public who's job it was to lie about things (as someone said was the case with your parents) bears a huge level of culpability. I can only say that if their current attitude is a desire to do anything in their power to make things right with anyone the may have hurt, then you should probably try to put them in touch with the person who is hurt. If it is not, and you would hesitate to put them in touch with a seething person, for fear they would not just "take it" from the person. Then I would say that it would not be a good reflection on whether they have come to grips with things. I said this before elsewhere, that I know a ton of "good" FGA's but if I were simply reading a newspaper account of some of the things they bear responsibility for. I would be howling for blood, when I view it from unattached third person view it sounds so much worse, but I think it is a more accurate view.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddie
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 07:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, I envy, I begrudge (as far as I know, these are very similar in meaning.). I'd be so bold as to say I am jealous. I never had parents who treated me like they loved me, and I never had parents I could love. I never had parents. I grew up in a family of 13, yet never had a family. Is it wrong for me to sit in envy? I think not.
I take offense with your "constructed reality" statement, as the underlying connotation is that my reality is simulated, or on some level unreal. This is all of my reality. This was the first 15 years, and carries on through the last 9 years of my life. This is the story of me. This is what flows through my blood, my mind, my soul. It's in my skin. It's in my bones. It doesn't ever go away. Don't you tell me this isn't real. You'll never know what it's like. I'm glad you won't. I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
I am not disputing that there were FGA's who wished good. There were certainly well meaning people. There were people that had they not participated in the application of the doctrine, would have been fine people. Not everyone was a wolf in the bushes, waiting for a juicy meal. Not everyone was a sadistic predator better suited for a job at Abu Ghraib. I never said they were. I am saying, that no FGA was innocent. You either solicited, participated, or condoned by denial.
There were people who wished good. People who wished I'd be free of my demons. They meant good alright. There were the people who wanted to do something. People who snuck me food when I was told to skip a meal. People who let me watch videos with them on their RNR, when I missed the weekly one as punishment. But at the end of the day, they were cogs in the machine that tormented me. I would far rather have been protected, than soothed later.
Now, I don't know why you think I'm singling out your parents. I don't know your parents. I am speaking of FGAs as a collective group. But I will say this. You have no right to call a self proclaimed victim of your parents a coward. If you don't know if it happened or not, you aren't in a position to refute the testimony. Whether your parents are guilty or not, is not something we'll find out by discussion here. Only your parents and the alleged victim know the truth of the matter.
I am not afraid to challenge the status quo, and I am not siding with everyone. I don't know why you'd feel I have, or feel my "behavior" is in any way "unfair to others". I am merely voicing my opinion, based on my experiences. If an FGA I knew was named, I may offer that they did not participate in the application of abusive techniques. I'm not afraid to do that. But I won't shy from voicing my (perhaps too aggressive for some) assertion that one could not have been a full time FGA member in the 70's 80's and 90's and been oblivious to child abuse. By virtue of having access to the mo letters alone makes them privy to the doctrine, and living in a commune with children, it is highly likely that they were privy to the practical application of doctrine as well. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Agreeing with Anna
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 07:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anna, I am happy that your life was a life I never had in TF. I am always ecstatic to find SGAs on this site that didn’t have to suffer as I did, although; just being raised in such a cult would be enough for anyone to consider abuse, because of the indoctrination, lack of socialization, lack of outside experiences, serious lack of objective reasoning, and so many other reasons. Still… the fact that you did not suffer any physical abuse says a lot about your parents and I know that there are others who were also spared and how could that not make me happy?
I was not lucky like you and suffered abuse in almost every home I lived in, however; I want to take the time to defend your parents as I did have the pleasure to live with them a couple of times and they were decent and good people and I do believe they cared and felt badly for what was going on around them. I even remember them getting themselves in some trouble for sticking up for a couple of us kids that were harshly put on silence restriction and work detail. Your parents are cool in my book and I will defend them any day.
You do have a voice and a right to your opinion, and this site should be fair and properly represented by all sides and points of views, including any good that may have come from yours, or anyone’s experiences in the group. I don’t want us to become like them and lie and say it was only one way. By us being objective and acknowledging that not everyone was abused, but just telling it like it is, makes us real, honest, and honorable compared to their lies and bullshit.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Very Telling
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 08:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Am I the only one who sees the irony that this is the kind of thing that made us consider certain Uncles and Aunties "decent and good people":
"they were decent and good people and I do believe they cared and felt badly for what was going on around them. I even remember them getting themselves in some trouble for sticking up for a couple of us kids that were harshly put on silence restriction and work detail."
I can understand that this reaction would be the most you could expect from another kid. But is this the best the "decent and good" adults could do?? Why did they not withdraw their 100%-er support of the group that caused "what was going on around them"?
Some kids whose parents may not have hurt them need to understand that in the communal living with shared responsibility, those parents might very well have incurred other children's justified hurt.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Oddman
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 23:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
As far as I'm concerned, any "good and decent" human being would not stand by and watch the torturing of a child, and expect "being nice" the rest of the time to make up for that.
Going over my earlier comments on this thread, I realise there is a group of FGA's that allowance must be made for. Those who joined for the first time AFTER the purge. I remember some from Eastern Europe and Russia who were joining after the purge, and had low comprehension of English. I don't know if the most controversial texts were translated to Russian, so I would have to say there is a possibility they did not read them . These FGA's would not likely have read the texts instructing the abusive acts. However, it is likely that they would still have witnessed some acts or heard witness of some acts. The culpability of these FGAs is debatable. (reply to this comment) |
| | From moon beam
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 11:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
Just goes to show that the ole saying holds true, that
'Evil exists when good people do nothing'
It happens in every level of society and they make up the majority, sadly.
In a cultic/ controlled enviroment it is made harder to speak out and feel you are entitled to have a voice of your own.
In a cult there is only room for ONE parent The LEADER. All other parents had to be an extension/mirror image of Berg. The ones who did ask questions, raise concerns or try to make our lives easier ie 'steal' some food from the kitchen, eat their childrens vile plate full of snake gourd were the ones ostricised and made to feel weak, unfaithfull, full of pride and out of the spirit and probably got kicked out or left earlier than the ones who, when you turned up at a new home you quickly learned to avoid.
my mom was one of those in the first category of people, my stepad the second. Yet he was considered 'more dedicated and spiritual than my mother.
Twisted!
This article goes into it a bit...
A Situationist Perspective on the Psychology of Evil: Understanding How Good People Are Transformed into Perpetrators.
http://www.movingon.org/article.asp?sID=1&Cat=21&ID=3260
(reply to this comment) |
| | From a thought
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 06:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
Envy is "a feeling of discontented or resentful longing aroused by another's better fortune, etc." so that is consistent with the begrudging.
Look, you were born about the time The Family started to rein in the rampant child sex abuse. By my math, you were about 5 during the DTR and about 7 when your parents were cult spokespersons. No wonder your experience was different.
I can't tell you how many times people who treated me fairly and were a breath of fresh air at a difficult time turned out to be people that participated in awful abuses of others "in the past".
One of the issues here is that there has never been any reckoning or amends. Thus we are left to vent the bile that remains in our system from our experiences. Fear not, nothing will happen to your parents, nothing will happen to any of them. We know that and that probably heightens the frustration we vent because we know we will never have another outlet except to harm ourselves.
Maybe the people who you say "aligned themselves with a coward who attacked [your] parents" feel that in the 90's they were cowards who attacked survivors of The Family's child abuse. And maybe that experience sensitized them to certain things you needed to be protected from.
I also refuse to feel bad about being one of the cult's early batch of guinea pigs and don't want to be silenced for fear of offending you.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Feeling and speaking out are two different things
Monday, February 26, 2007, 11:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
MovingOn.org FAQ's
"9. Don't I have the absolute right to complete freedom of speech?
Unless you are living in China or The Family, (or if you are really unlucky in The Family in China) you sure do have the right of freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want whenever you want. However you cannot say it wherever you want.
If you want to yell at your neighbor, you have every right to do it from your living room. You cannot go into his house and yell at him in his living room. While this web site may look like it's in your living room, it's actually not. Personal feuds, drunken ramblings, temper tantrums and obscene thoughts are best indulged in privately. Really. No one wants to read that."
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Oddman
Monday, February 26, 2007, 11:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I understand that. That might apply to the threads where people are arguing and outing each other over private assets, or threads which have turned into a verbal insult boxing match. I don't think Sar said anything that this FAQ clause should apply to. Granted, the issue of our drop-out hippy parents is a sore one. But if we can't criticise or debate their actions, it takes a chunk out of this website. If our parents did not do anything worthy of criticism, none of us would be here, and the purpose of this online community would be nil. Some participants have enjoyed better relationships with their parents than others have. Congratulations to them. If those who didn't have a thing or two to say in response, why should they be discouraged from doing so? Sar's comments were far from the most obscene, personal, or drunken ones seen on this site. Sar wasn't the one who calling another participant "bitch". While some may consider Sar's views and opinions skewered, extreme, or narrowminded, I for one, feel it's a valid opinion (Though perhaps not in it's entirety).
SAY NO TO CENSORSHIP!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From sar
Sunday, February 25, 2007, 14:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think everyone has a right to have opinions on people and to express those opinions. I understand you don't agree with my opinions and that's your prerogative. You're not going to convince me to your view and I'm not going to convince you to mine. We see things from entirely different spectrums and while I see how you came to your view, I don't subscribe to the same. I am aware that FGAs have only themselves to blame. That is because are to blame. In my view self loathing is not sufficient punishment.
Might I remind you that any parents or teachers who knew of their child or a child in their care's abuse and did nothing committed a criminal offence, any adults who knowlingly had sex in front of children committed an offence, any adults who encouraged children to have sex with eachother committed an offence, any adults who seriously bruised children committed an offence, any adults who were in meetings positively discussing any of the above committed an offence. Those are just a few off the top of my head and I realise the laws on this vary from country to country and probably from state to state, but the chances that every adult member in the family committed a criminal offence are high. Most adult family members are in fact criminals who have not been tried.
I don't think of something as worse if it happens to me or by someone more closely related to me. I am an advocate of child rights and I don't like people who condone the abuse of children. But I don't think of your parents as the enemy. I don't think of anyone as an enemy. I'm not seeking revenge or justice. This isn't a personal issue for me.
Anyway, I was just annoyed by the lack of scepticism shown to the woman and the immediate bias towards her against the father, which didn't seem to have any logical basis. That was the reason for my comment.
You think I'm beyond reason. I think you're still too emotionally entwined to think objectively about this. We obviously see things from different viewpoints.(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Sunday, February 25, 2007, 15:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sar, you attacked the women who was trying to find her son's father. You questioned her motives and the anger her son was feeling. Again I repeat, as a parent reguardless of her motives it is absolutly her right to look for her childs father. More so if he is in pain or anger about not knowing his father. She has every right to be angry at the father for abandoning his child. I am not saying she is angry but if she was she has that right. My husband harbors anger towards his mom for not letting him know his dad. For lying about his whereabouts.
The other issue. As unfortunate as it is. In many if not most of the countries we were in it was not against the law to beat us, to sexually abuse us. The laws in those countries at that time was loose if non existant. Here in the states twenty years ago they still paddled kids in school. So while we may want to sit in our tower of blame the painful reality is a lot of the things we suffered through were not in fact against the law.
The real criminals are the leaders who shuffled known abusers from location to location and failed to tell the homes of the prior incidents. I think most parents in the family genuinely cared about their kids and wanted them to be healthy and happy. I don't think we can cast such a wide blanket and accuse them all of being criminals. You need to think of the single moms who had half a dozen children. Who had no money, no support and the reality of if she left how she would provide for those children. How on earth would she leave if she was in a poor country like India? I can only admire the ones who did have the courage to leave and the strength they must have had to do it by themselves. If you remember around the same time they had victor camps they also had RTC's retraining programs. Where adults were seperated from their spouse and children for months at a time to be reprogrammed. Many parent had no choice but to turn a blind eye to what happened to their children to keep their family together as they secretly prepared to leave.
It may have been easy to join but it was hell getting out.(reply to this comment) |
| | From conan
Monday, February 26, 2007, 08:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yet you find it ok that this mother has lived without her son's father involved in any aspect of her son's life until now, when she feels there is a way for both her and her son to benefit from a renewed contact with the 'sperm donor'. I don't want to come across as the chauvinistic prick, but the fact that the son in question is now of legal age, regardless of mental health (or lack thereof) it is not the mother's place to search for the father and seek assistance for the child's upbringing after so many years in which she apparently had no need for him.
I doubt that laws in other countries are loose when it comes to defining criminal activity against minor children, especially that of sexual content, but I feel like there are more loopholes for a foreigner in those countries to exploit or officials they can bribe to make sure that charges disappear or witnesses deemed less credible, etc.
The real criminals are each and every legal adult in TF during the years where abuses were carried out without remorse or consequence. Every legal adult who was aware of Berg's demented policies and did nothing to try and rectify something that they took offense to. Every legal adult who complied with Berg's insanity and continued to fuck every other adult/child/minor around and have child after child born into an abusive environment. Every legal adult who kept quiet during this period of time and have since told us survivors and victims that they are sorry 'mistakes were made' and that they were confused and misguided. To every legal adult who consented to us as children to be their bread winners and 'shining examples' whilst being taught how to lie about the acts we witnessed or were forced into participation of behind closed doors. Every legal adult who is still in TF and continues to send a percentage of their income to support the psycho widow of the deranged madman who controlled our lives for years. Every legal adult who denies all 'allegations' of abuse as bitter vitriolic conjured up by 'bitter apostates' who have no legitimate claim to being abused or suffering injustice. Every legal adult who taught us children that the abuse suffered publicly by those of the Berg household was justified and deserved and that whatever they suffered they brought on themselves. Every legal adult who beat us and systematically beat down our emotions and made us feel worthless and insignificant.
My parents are in that list because of there continued participation in TF as a way of life and their continued denial of previous wrongdoing. For their lifelong participation and the fact that my life is at a distinct disadvantage for having been a slave to their control and forced to fear everything in the world as evil when the real monsters were under the same roof I was told was ‘home sweet home’.
You tell me cheeks, are they justified by feeling guilty or remorse? Does their pain make up for the years of insufferable grief that myself, my siblings and my peers suffered silently through? I don’t think it does, and if I chose to view them with bitterness and/or disdain, I feel like I’m justified in doing so without someone else trying to make excuses for them. I wasn’t the one who voluntarily joined a cult and then voluntarily allowed some mysterious entity who claimed to be a prophet to slowly change the direction of my life and ask more and more of me in an attempt to satisfy his voracious appetite for the perverse while exposing their young to more of the same.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From cheeks
Monday, February 26, 2007, 18:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Firstly Conan, you don't know from the above dialog that this woman willingly lived without the support of her child's father. You do not know how long she has looked for the father of her child. Perhaps she finnaly fell into this site after years of searching. It is once again her right as a mother to find the father of this child. I know of many, many instances in the Family where men have sired children from women other that their wives and have kept in contact and supported these children. I do not care what reason she is looking for him it is her right as a mother to look for this man. It is her right to take him to court and get back child support for the child that she raised alone.
In the Family I lived in South America, India, PI, Europe and the United States. I have lived in well over 100 homes. Everyone of you will be lying if you told me you were abused in every home you lived in. You were not. There were good homes and there were very bad homes. Just like there were good teachers and very bad ones. I defy you to tell me that every adult in the Family abused you. Having sex with someone other than your spouse is not a crime. Having sex with a minor is. Did you have sex with every adult in every home? Did every adult in every home beat you. Not spank you beat you. Most parents did not know their children were sexually abused. My parents didn't know. They didn't know until last year and I am thirty. Sexual abuse is a dirty painful secret. That is why children are abused for so many years and no one knows.
I spent my whole childhood in the Family. So don't stand there and tell me what I should or shouldn't feel. I have been there and done that and I have the damn t-shirt. Not everyone is guilty of abuse and that is the bottom line. When there were all the big homes where they tried new crap on us kids, there were still the small homes who were clueless to what was going on. There were parents who stood up for us and were severly punnished. As a parent I would never leave without my children. I would stay years and years til I got back together with all of them. How many broken family's were in the Family? How many parents do you think tried desperatly to get back with their children and kept their mouths closed to what was going on around them. Did they have a choice. If you were a parent what choice would you make? How desperate would you be.
I think we need to put the blame where the blame is due and that is the leadership. The ones who were in charge. The ones who gave the orders and made sure they were carried out. And yes I do blame the adults who saw us walking around with signs hanging from our necks saying we are on silence restriction. I blame the adults who watched the teens have public paddling and did nothing to stop them. I blame the adults who had the power over us when we were powerless. Do you think I don't remember that? That I don't remember being 12 and so scared at night I couldn't breathe? I carried that fear with me for years until I saw one of my tormentors and thought 'I can kill her now if I have to'. What child should have to live like that?
But I repeat it did not happen in every home, it did not happen to everyone, and it was not every adult. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From conan
Tuesday, February 27, 2007, 13:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
Cheeks,
I don’t want to turn this into a drawn out debate and I’m not really trying to say that I’m right and you’re wrong. It’s just something that bothers me when people try and excuse the generations of adults who knowingly, willfully chose to join the Children of God and then to remain in throughout the years of bizarre policy twists, abuses, insane ranting, etc.
I understand that many of them were confused and fucked up when they joined and many of them had drug dependency issues and the COG helped many of them in that sense and I can’t deny that. However, to remain under the COG and eventually The Family’s standard and maintain their way of life when publications like The Dito Book and Heaven’s Girl were made available to all and used as the guidepost for what we were supposed to live and expect to be in out future. Can you honestly excuse your parents for allowing you to read stories of what we were supposed to be like in the ‘End Time’…enjoying a gang rape? What about the graphic pictures in the Davidito Book and the stories about ‘love-up time’ and the other sexually explicit, illegal, pedophilic, pornographic literature that was literally shoved in our faces and paraded around us and indoctrinated into our young, idyllic minds.
Don’t tell me that you are okay with being taught how to lie to the police and other government authorities and just accepted that as an obstacle that our parents (and all FG Adults) allowed us to participate in and quiz us on. Even as a young child, I know that I thought that there was no way that I could agree with these rehearsed answers addressed to ‘Romans’ when clearly it was a lie or they wouldn’t have place such importance on our knowing how to reply to so many different questions. I’m sorry, but I don’t see how you can excuse them for what they did to us.
I’m not saying that each and every adult who joined the COG were intent on manipulating us and ruining our collective lives, and I know there were some good people who were just caught up in the bullshit. But as a general rule of thumb, I never had a single adult tell me that they were sorry that my education was secondary to the home’s financial security, or that they wanted me to be successful and whatever I wanted to be when I grew up. I never believed them when they would beat me (not spank me, beat me) and tell me that ‘this hurts me more than it hurts you!’ or when they told me that whatever happened to me was done in love. Maybe I’m the exception and you were the standard and I’m seeing this through angry, vindictive, bitter eyes…but be that as it may, I was abused in every home I lived in prior to the onset of ‘The Charter’. And when I say abused, I mean put through ordeals that no child at my age should have had to be put through, and I know for a fact that I had it better than my older siblings as well as several of the other kids in my home….and I went through hell. I was beaten in every home I was in, exposed to sexual activity and sexually approached and instructed in with live demonstrations. I was ABUSED!! And every adult I came into contact with or conversed with knew about it…and did NOTHING!
I guess I’m not the forgetful/forgiving, whatever you want to label it, type…but I don’t let any of them off my hook when it comes to taking the blame or having animosity toward. I’m happy for you that you can give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe that makes you a better person for it. I don’t dislike you because of your views; I just don’t see through your eyes and don’t expect a blanket endorsement. Maybe a blanket denouncement isn’t right either, but I find it strange that anyone of us who survived our childhoods and escaped would come to the defense of any of these people who had a hand in manipulating us for years in some way or other. If you can see past their participation and/or standing by, or whatever you want to label it, then good for you, and I wish you happiness. I can’t! Maybe one day I will, but that day is not today.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From An Abandoned Kid
Monday, February 26, 2007, 15:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Conan, I agree with nearly all of your post, except for a key thing, where I think you need to consider reality.
You may not realize, due to your age and when you got out of the cult, that information and a CHANCE to find people on the internet is very, very new. For many years, "backslidden" parents' best option, if they could afford it, was to shell out thousands on private investigators to locate the people that disappeared into the concealing arms of the cult, god knows where in the world.
Just think, even now, over 5 years since MovingOn was created and 2 years since posting here, she has not been able to get the guy's contact information!
From my experience and that of a lot of other young people whose parents, unlike yours, did not stay together, I know how the cult remorselessly shuffled people to avoid responsibilities to the "system" or people who they now consider part of it.
There were MANY cases of parents who were truly UNABLE for many years to locate the other biological parent or even the kids the cult helped them keep in the Family. This mother's having so-called "lived without her son's father involved in any aspect of her son's life until now" may well have been 100% the choice and in the control of the father and his Family enablers.
You are the one who mentioned wanting support. Far from years of what you term having "no need for him", she probably had dire need for him but no way of finding him. In the US we have comparatively a lot of opportunities, and even for abandoned mothers HERE it is hard. Do you have any clue what it's like in the third world where the cult sowed so many wild oats and exploitation but where the poverty is pervasive?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From sar
Sunday, February 25, 2007, 16:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I did not attack her, or at least that was not what I intended to do, I intended to question her. I know alot of single parents blame their children's problems on the absent parent. I admit that I should have first asked when she left the family, but I imagined his upbringing in the family would be a greater cause of anger than not knowing his father. I also found it strange that she was looking for the father rather than him doing it. I didn't know that he was disabled and I realise I was hurtful and should have been more tactful in my sceptiscism.
While the law has progressed along way in the last 20 years, there were some child rights even then and while using paddles was common, many children in the family were beaten to the point of GBH, which has been an offence even in relation to children for centuries. I take your point that though.
I have also considered the predicament of single mothers and think that it would have been difficult for them to leave. But I still think that if they really cared about their children they would have done it. It was always easy to get work teaching English in foreign countries. Many mothers were from western nations where child support and income support is available, they could have gone to their respective embassies. I don't think it would be easy, but I think it would have been the only thing to do. Many parents turned a blind eye and did nothing.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From sar
Monday, February 26, 2007, 08:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
"attack..., v. to fall upon violently: to assault: to assail: to begin to affect or act destructively upon."
"insult..., v. treat with indignity or contempt: to affront"
That's from Wordsworth Concise English Dictionary.
They are two different words with entirely different meanings and connontations. One can passively insult someone, but cannot acurately be said to passively attack someone. Does that sufficiently answer your question? Let me know if you don't understand the words that the dictionary uses to define either attack or insult. I would be most happy to explain those words to you.
Anyway, I used the two words in reference to different comments, so I don't see why you see a need for me to distinguish the two. Unless you just didn't know whether there was a difference between the two words and you were merely seeking information from my obviously superior knowledge of the English language. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Ne Oublie
Monday, February 26, 2007, 14:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Apparently in your zeal to reference the dictionary you missed a key element to my question: "in this context".
If we're going to play the dictionary game, why don't you try these on for size:
Attack - to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly
Insult - to treat or speak to insolently or with contemptuous rudeness; affront. (And for good measure, even - Archaic. to attack; assault)
Given that this is an online forum, I would find your chosen definition of 'attack' to be rather less relevant. However, if that was the interpretation you were operating on, then I understand your position (if slightly question your comprehension).(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Sunday, February 25, 2007, 15:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, I am emotionally entwined. That does not make my point any less valid. I did not try to appeal to your emotion, I tried to make you see your insulting our parents is not excused by your prejudice, no matter how fair you think that prejudice may be.
"We see things from entirely different spectrums and while I see how you came to your view, I don't subscribe to the same. I am aware that FGAs have only themselves to blame. That is because are to blame. In my view self loathing is not sufficient punishment."
That is because you lack sufficient empathy to see anyone as a victim other than yourself and those you have chosen to represent: SGAs. As I said before SGAs without a doubt suffered the greatest of all, but that does not mean FGAs didn't as well.
"Might I remind you that any parents or teachers who knew of their child or a child in their care's abuse and did nothing committed a criminal offence, any adults who knowlingly had sex in front of children committed an offence, any adults who encouraged children to have sex with eachother committed an offence, any adults who seriously bruised children committed an offence, any adults who were in meetings positively discussing any of the above committed an offence. Those are just a few off the top of my head and I realise the laws on this vary from country to country and probably from state to state, but the chances that every adult member in the family committed a criminal offence are high. Most adult family members are in fact criminals who have not been tried."
So in your opinion, this describes every FGA? And how praytell do you know they are guilty of these? Without waiting for your response, I will tell you that you don't.
"But I don't think of your parents as the enemy. I don't think of anyone as an enemy. I'm not seeking revenge or justice."
Really? You change your tune very quickly, since you said the following comment in a preceding paragraph:
"I am aware that FGAs have only themselves to blame. That is because are to blame. In my view self loathing is not sufficient punishment."
Make up your mind. Merely being in the family is not a sufficient case for condoning child abuse.
In my opinion your blame of FGAs is very similar to blame that victims of domestic abuse are faced with. Comments like, "Why didn't she leave?" or "She married him, shouldn't she have known?" are incredibly dangerous as they project blame on to the abused rather than the abuser. I equate many FGAs experiences of being in the family to being in an abusive relationship.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Sunday, February 25, 2007, 16:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Firstly, I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to me as an SGA.
How do I know they are guilty? Devotional meetings could easily lead to a charge of conspiracy or incitement - depending on what was said/agreed. I assume most adults went to devotions and that they did contradict the mo letters.
I don't believe my two statements contradict myself. I am strongly adverse what family adults did and I don't think that they are justified in any way, but I have no intention of seeking retribution. Just because I think they deserve it, doesn't mean that even want it to happen.
In my opinion my blame of adult family members would come closer to blaming the abuser in domestic violence situations. They were in fact the abusers in domestic violence situations. Anyway, I do also blame parents who let their children be abused by the other and do nothing. To use your analogy, some FGAs may have been the parent in an abusive domestic relationship, who though not being beaten, was too emotionally attached to their partner to do anything about the abuse the child was suffering from the other. The law considers them an accomplice in the abuse and so do I.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From AnnaH
Sunday, February 25, 2007, 15:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
Of course, and I hope you haven't misunderstood me. That's not what I meant to say at all. If that was the case, the abused would have every right to be angry. But the "abused" I was referring to was those children indirectly hurt by their parents' actions. If they choose to blame their parents that is their business, and their's alone. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From conan
Monday, February 26, 2007, 09:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
Maybe I'm the insensitive one in this, but I don't see why it seems so wrong for sar to be angry at the majority (or entirety if you will) of the first generation of Family members, i.e. those who chose to join and then stayed, had children, etc. Sure there are cases of extenuating circumstances where parents felt like TF was the best place to raise their children and when they discovered the truth, felt like they were trapped and couldn't get out. But the asshole in me still sees that as their personal weakness getting the better of them, and why should we, those born to these FGA’s take solace in their hindsight's remorse after the damage has already been done. I don't see why I should feel bad for, or apologize for them or try and explain away their choices. They were ultimately, their choices to make, and I think you’ll have to agree with me that they made the wrong choice or series of choices over a period of time. Is that wrong? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from LauraF
Wednesday, May 10, 2006 - 18:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Renata:
This is Shalom. I'd love to hear from you. Talitha says you have not answered her.
My e-mail address is lauraff7@aol.com. Please get in touch!
Laura (formerly Shalom)
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from exister
Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 07:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
If this Matthew character is an FGA then he isn't likely to hang out here, though an SGA with a conscience might lead you to him.
I hope you find him and sue his deadbeat ass for back child support, although I get the impression that that isn't your intention. If you do find him I wouldn't expect him to have the empathy nor the strength of character to be able to do anything helpful about his son's rage.
Good luck.
(reply to this comment)
| From Lance
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 20:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh come on Exister! Weren't all our parents dead beats to begin with? I bet if you had been a few IQ points down the ladder, you might have turned out as a righteous fuck up as well. Matthew is my step dad, and he IS being sued for child support. And unlike a dead-beat dad, he is actually paying it.
You are right about one things though, I don't think her intention is to get child support; However, Matthew does have the empathy, and the strength of character.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Amen!
Wednesday, February 28, 2007, 21:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
How unfair for a sperm donor who was in The Family to have to pay an egg donor, who didn't even have custody! Forget that kids and other people were shipped all around in The Family, so nobody really had custody. The man was born with a dick and that trumps the stupid womb that gets screwed (literally) for at least the nest year. Everybody knows that the egg donor is much, much more responsible when a child is brought into the world. I mean, she carries the kid! Who in their right minds would expect the sperm donor, whose contribution takes up like 10 seconds of his life, to share EQUAL responsibility? Dude! That's nuts (harhar). Every female knows that the privilege of getting stuck with his baster is up to you, and it's a man's prerogative to stuff'm and leave'm. Whereas a woman who does that is scum. And who cares about the poor kid stuck in the middle. The bitch asked for it, and I want to go on to my next project.(reply to this comment) |
| | From sar
Saturday, February 24, 2007, 02:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
"...with a conscience"? really? You read three or four lines from some woman who joined the family (I am assuming she was in the fam as flirty fishing was banned more than 17 years ago) and you come to the conclusion that the conscionable thing to do would be to get her in touch with some man who she claims is her son's father. You sound naive and gullible.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From historian
Saturday, February 24, 2007, 14:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
Whatever blind eyes may have been turned to other situations, when FFing was "discontinued", there was a specific exception for fish who were already "good enough friends", which were grandfathered in.
Any "exceptions" that may have been needed would have been for new fish. And we all know how that group, where everything is decided by the individuals in power, handed out exceptions when the wanted. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From figaro
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 15:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
thats absolutly true. im not trying to speak for him, just defend him and point out some facts/veiws that others may not have considered.
for instance, how do we know he didnt want to take care of the kid and the mother took off with him and denied him being in his sons life? that has happened MANY times. and now that she fucked up her sons life she wants mathews help thinking maybe he can undo some of the damage she has done to her son? i almost know she isnt trying to sue for child support because i dont think at this point she CAN. he is over 18 and not a USA citizen, and the mother may not be either. however i do think that she is trying to tell her son that his mental issues (im going out on a limb and guessing he has them since he was in TF) stem from not having known his father and thinking that it can be reversed by meeting him, and if thats true then he is just gonna be disapointed by the fact that his father is 2 thousand miles away and he wont be able to have the relationship with his father that he may want. and his problems may worsen. (remember, im speaking hypothetically, i dont know any of this for certain, just throwing out other possible facts for a differant way of looking at this)(reply to this comment) |
| | From cynical bastard
Thursday, March 01, 2007, 19:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is very valid and saved me from writing something along these lines myself that would have come across as vicious and nasty. :)
She (renata) does not sound to me like a woman who is at all concerned with (back) child support or another form of financial supplement. It sounds like she is trying to pawn her sons issues, difficulties on the assumed father as she doesn't seem to be able to cope. She sounds to me (an unbiased observer) like a bitter, jilted woman who is looking for help shouldering her guilt for letting her child live for so many years in an environment that was clearly not conducive to the aforementioned child's mental health while living his formative years in a cult. I happen to think that if she seriously wanted the father involved in her son's life, she would have done more a decade or so ago when it would have made more sense being that the boy's father was at the time still in the cult.
I don't know, and to be honest, I don't care. I do like some of the sub-plots this article's thread has produced tho, so what the fuck!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from LaGuerita
Wednesday, March 01, 2006 - 15:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hello
I don't know how relevant this is, and I don't know exactly how to say this. I remember a Renata from Puerto Rico briefly, I was very young. But I do remember Miguel somewhat. Matthew is my father. I don't know if I could help you find him, since I'm not sure what your intentions are (no offense). But I don't want your son to feel this way, since I have just realized that he is my half-brother. If you or he would like to contact me my email is girlyprankster@hotmail.com
(reply to this comment)
|
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]