Talk:The Family International/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Discussion Etiquette

This discussion page was getting to be unreadable and unorganised and, so, I have reformatted the various discussions using standard Wikipedia formatting. I would please ask that everyone sign their posts (place four tildes '~' at the end of your post). If you are going to include multiple paragraphs, please sign each and every paragraph. Try to use "*" instead of ":" for easy formatting. When answering a particular user, please begin the paragraph/post with their name(s) and increment the "*" at the beginning of your post (you might also wish to place their name(s) in bold). Please try to place quotes in boxes (blockquote). Please use bold text sparingly (use italics instead). It is not necessary to begin a post with "By so-and-so"; simply sign your post at the end of the paragraph/post. Try not to break up the flow of discussion-texts by placing your post in-between "conversations"; place it after the "conversation" with an incremented "*" at the beginning. We will have to start archiving more often as we are three times over the suggested kilobyte limit. Thank you! Thorwald 03:41, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


History

  • This is more factual than the replaced paragraph concerning the transition from COG to the Family of Love. --Mindsports 19:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Teachings and Practices

  • Details you beat me to it. Seems good for now though in time perhaps we would want to draft up something rather than just paste in what someone else has said. Though it is good for now. Thanks!--Cognomen2 00:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Cognomen2 I agree that you (or someone else) need to actually write something rather than just use those two very long quotes in a section with nothing else. If we started doing that for other sections, the entry would degrade into a huge and useless collection of quotes. Perhaps you are using quotes because you know that people can't or won't edit them (although we can delete them). That is inapropriate. If you have something to write then write it yourself. It's fine to cite your sources but just pasting in huge quotes is not helpful. I think it's ok to use to brief quotes to make a point but you need to make that point first by actually writing something. Also, I don't think a Teachings sections belongs in the 1994-present section unless you only want to cover recent teachings and for that there is already a Recent Teachings section which can definitely use more information about recent developments in Family theology like explaining the personal key hovercraft and the multitude of spirit helpers, goddesses, demons, etc as well as the increased use of prophecy for important things like movie reviews. Manicmoe 06:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Manicmoe that long quotes are bad style. Can the quotes of judge Ward shortened please? Andries 07:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I am a bit stumped as to why the quotes from Justice Ward are included. Seems the whole issue he was grapling with of whether the Family is/was the CoG is moot because even in the Family's official statement on their origins is entitled "The Origins of a Movement: From 'The Children of God' to 'The Family International.'" So I believe the whole first block quote from his judgment could be dropped. I will plan on doing that if I have a general agreement on this.--Cognomen2 03:46, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes, shorter quotes please. It's our job to summarize information. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:13, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I added a beliefs section and I agree with you Manicmoe that it was in the wrong place before. I was therefore a bit stumped as to where to put it so I put it at the beginning of the article as the most logical place. It shows what type of group we are and what we believe, and I think that is a prerequisite for putting the rest of the article in context. I realize it is long but it is already quite summarized. The article itself is quite long now but I think there are probably some unnecessary parts in the later part of the article.--Cognomen2 02:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Cognomen2 Well, that is a good start. I do think it could be a bit shorter and written in a paragraph or two rather than a long list of "They believe..." statements. The theology and beliefs of a new religious movement like the Children of God/the Family is a huge subject. I think it would be better to have a shorter summary of their theology and beliefs that we can all agree on and then links to external sources for more information. For example, we can have links to the Family's Statement of Faith at http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/statements/faith.htm and also to its publications (there are a few of them at http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/pubs_list.shtml ). I don't think the Beliefs section belongs at the top of the article. It is very confusing to start the article with a long list of what they believe before they are fully introduced. For now, I am going to move the Beliefs section to section number 2, right after History. Manicmoe 05:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm learning the do's and don'ts, and it seem long quotes are out, fair enough, a summary is fine with me. At least the existence of the quotes gives some independent verification of what the group's beliefs are. Style wise, I tend to agree with Manicmoe, that a readable paragraph may be better than a bullet list of points. However I do also agree with Cognomen that this should be early on in the article. Where it is now looks good to me. The primary identity of this group is a religious movement - as opposed to a political group, a business etc - so it figures that their theology would be one of the first sections. --Details 18:02, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
After looking this over I think it'd be fine to have a short, succinct beliefs summary at the beginning of the article. The present one the Cognomen wrote up is too long though. But I do agree with giving the reader a sense of what the group believes first off--before getting into the history, biz, finances, etc.--Mindsports 17:29, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think that the long quotes make for tedious reading and that a shorter readable summary of beliefs presented at the beginning of the article is of greater help to the reader. Mandolin 10:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I cut it down a bit and put it into paragraphs that basically cover similar points. I moved it to the top again as you all suggested. I also deleted the block quote on the Virgin Mary. It seems there is quite a lot of disagreement with regards to using block quotes and sometimes people who have argued against it in one instance have then inserted them in another. Oh well. Anyway, lets see what happens with it this time. --Cognomen2 23:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Revert Wars

Okay. Let’s see if we can put this to rest. The following authors, 68.55.238.141, 168.143.113.5, and Audiofree have erased large blocks of text and have replaced them with pro-COG material. Thus, for the remainder of this post, I will refer to them as the "pro-COG" editors or authors. Thorwald

The editors who were here prior to the pro-COG editors have written what I believe to be fairly NPOV material [1]. This was discussed in previous posts, so I will not elaborate on it any further. Thorwald

The purpose of this post is to consider each change and/or deletion made by these pro-COG editors against the body of sources (pre-COG insertions) listed as "References" and "External links" at the bottom of the main article. I will refer to these as "sources" for the remainder of this post. Thorwald

J. Gordon Melton, Ph.D.

The pro-COG editors continue to quote J. Gordon Melton, Ph.D. It is interesting to note that the FCF has listed him in their official expenses statement as having received around $10,000 to study their group. That is, the group sponsored this man to study their group and to then write books or essays on them. The evidence of this is easily obtained from the FCF web site ([2]-page 38). Thus, I would suggest that any quotations from him used in this article include a disclaimer. It is difficult to view him as an independent academic writing with a NPOV when he is sponsored by the very group he is investigating. Dr. Melton is also listed as an official "expert" of the COG/TF on the group's official Web Page [3]. For more information on Dr. Melton, please visit [4]. Thorwald

  • From EBW: Dr. J. Gordon Melton just also happens to be president of a campy group of vampire fanatics called the Transylvanian Society of Dracula. This is no joke. See the good doctor himself in drag dressed as Dracula: http://www-lib.usc.edu/~melindah/Drac97/elvira.htm. --EBW
    • Why does this innocent, though unusual hobby make his academic work less credible? Dr. David C. Lane about Melton See David C. Lane. Andries 23:16, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • From EBW: It doesn't. For that matter, I don't think ANYTHING could make Melton's academic work (at least his apologetics for destructive cults) less credible than it already is. A researcher funded by the groups he studies is anything but "academic" or "credible". But, concerning vampires, From the volume of work that Mr. Melton has devoted to the subject, it is clear that it is more than just a hobby. Such a fascination for this decidedly macabre and cultic subject certainly has relevance to his credibility in religious or psychological matters. The same would be true for a Mason, A Klansman, A Satanist, a psychic, an evangelist, or any other such interest or "hobby" that touches on the spirit or the psyche. They could all claim that it has no bearing on their judgement. But it wouldn't be true. And there is supposed to be some sort of link between credibility and the truth. --EBW

Quote by Dr. Melton: I agree with ThePedanticPrick on removing the quote by Melton on FFing. This quote completely contradicts all other sources on this practice (including actual writings by Berg; see FFing section). It is obvious from reading this quote that Melton was painfully trying to make this practice seem as routine and innocent as possible (and I thought he did a fairly poor job at it). Finally, Melton's intentions with this quote are clear when you understand that he was paid by The Family International to write the article from which this quote was taken. Thorwald 22:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alleged "Scholars"

The pro-COG editors have referred to various "scholars" who have explained some of the group’s teachings and practices. These "scholars" describe the group’s Charter as a "very innovative and unique document". I am interested who these scholars are and if any of them are also sponsored by the group? What about this document did they find "unique" or "innovative"? It is my understanding, from reading through the sources, that this document is something any organization should expect to produce within a few years of its existence. The fact that it took 27 years for them to produce it and that it contains clauses stating that the groups leadership could "revoke any of the rights at any time ... and more responsibilities could be added" seems anything but "innovative" to me. Thorwald

Pedophilia

The pro-COG editors have tried to remove any material suggesting the group’s controversial writings about adult/minor sex. Again, all material in this article covering pedophilia within this group (or by David Berg) was taken from sources. Some of these sources include the groups own writings (i.e. "The Story of Davidito" or "My Little Fish") and were referred to by The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Ward in his 1995 ruling ([5] under the sections of "Sharing" and "The Story of Davidito", etc.). The fact that these books were ordered destroyed by their leadership and are no longer in circulation does not erase their history and association with this group and, thus, I suggest their inclusion within this article. Thorwald

  • Leadership sanctioned sexual abuse and physical brutality were major features in the young lives of those who grew up in this cult. Any attempt to deny this fact is nothing more than "1984" style revisionism. I am not sure how much Wikipedia is interested in first hand accounts, but I myself was brutally beaten as a child and I personally witnessed the victimization of little girls when I was 6 years old. Anyone with the calloused nerve to delete these words should be banned from editing. (contribution made by user:Exister 22:05 13 Dec. 2004)
    • Exister, Wikipedia is not interested in anonymous first hand testimonies. If you are sure that you are willing to reveal your name then it may be of interest, though Wikipedia is basically a collection of information, based second and third source, not on first hand sources. Andries 21:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Andries, I think this is an odd thign to say. First, almost every contributor to Wikipedia is anonymous. Regarding first hand sources, are you saying that if I visited the Grand Canyon, that I should not write about it? I should tell someone about it, who tells someone about it and they should write about it? Indian Joe 21:02, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Andries, I am more than willing to reveal my full name to anyone who is willing to reveal theirs to me. However it appears that Wikipedia is primarily interested in prose that is cloaked behind a ruse of neutrality and "journalistic integrity", so there is little point in posting my identity for the whole world to see. Happy editing! --author_unknown
      • From EBW: I was in the COG/Family from October 1971 until March 1989. I witnessed (and suffered) many abuses. I was personally aware of several adults who had sex with children, in some cases their own children. This occurred:
- In Jakarta Indonesia (a top leader and a 12 year old girl).
- In Wakayama Japan (another 12 year old girl and her stepfather).
- In Sendai Japan (a mother and her 13 year old son).
- Also in Sendai (an adult man who had sexual contact with an 8 year old girl)
I also witnessed minor children in Sendai Japan being assigned to the same bed and told to have sex with each other. I will not post my name here but would be happy to reveal it privately to the wikipedia staff on the condition that it never be revealed to anyone else. For anyone interested, there is a website (movingon.org) that is run by young people who grew up in the group. That site contains many first hand accounts. I doubt if they would be willing to give their names in public. But the honesty of their accounts will be obvious to anyone looking for the truth. --EBW


The extract from Summit Jewels seems to violate the copyright rules as listed below so I deleted it.--Cognomen 23:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • Cognomen: I am curious why you didn't object to Indian Joe's excerpt from Make it Pay with regards to copyright infringement? I am by no means an expert on copyright law, however, I believe the way the Summit Jewels quote was presented it violated no laws (please feel free to correct me here if I am wrong and note that I wasn't the one who inserted this quote). On a side note, I would think The Family International (if they did, indeed, copyright that work) wouldn't want to bring the matter to court, as it is fairly incriminating evidence for those wanting to bring abuse claims against this group. Thorwald 23:55, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Thorwald Hello, missed you over the holidays. I probably should have brought up the subject earlier but it is the Wikipedia policy of "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" that is listed at the bottom of this edit page that came to my attention that I was referring to, not general copyright law. Also, I understand that the author of a work is the automatic copyright holder unless that copyright is signed over to another party. So even if the TFI did or did not copyright it the author has by default.
      • Cognomen: Hello. Happy New Year! Yes. I was on holiday for ten days and have just returned (with a vengeance. LOL! ;). I agree with you that copyrights are automatic with respect to an author's work. Whoever posted that quote had their reasons, however, I found it interesting and, if authentic, relevant to this article. If by including that quote we are breaking Wikipedia's policy concerning copyrights, then I support its removal. Do you think we could paraphrase it somehow? Actually, since you are a member, would you know if this quote is authentic. If so, was the way it was presented an accurate presentation of the author's (Karen Zerby) intended message? If not, what was she trying to convey here? Thank you! Thorwald 01:32, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • The Summit Jewels quotes should be okay under
        Fair Use.Indian Joe
        02:29, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have removed reference to pedophilia. I will allow that allegations of child abuse were laid against the Family in each of the countries listed. However, in looking over the documents I do not see one instance of the term pedophilia being used. If the allegations of pedophilia cannot be substantiated by documents then I don't see how this can stay in as it seems it is based on hearsay. Also, the final documents available in each case show that evidence of abuse was not found. So I have reworded this part to reflect the facts. --Cognomen2 17:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert Wars Discussion

For the above reasons, I believe the article should be reverted back to its original material. If the pro-COG editors wish to include material, I would suggest that they back up their claims with sources and use the NPOV guidelines. I call upon the other editors of this article to back me up on these points. Thank you! Thorwald 06:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I support reverts of unexplained removals. I am not sure whether J. Gordon Melton was paid and I think the burden of proof for this assertion is on you. So where can I find this? I think, it is just his style/bias to be very lenient about NRMs: I am just reading another book by him "Ramtha's school of enlightenment", which is appaling in its naivety and gullibility about Ramtha and in its bias against ex-members. Andries 09:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You will find proof of Family Care Fundation's donation to Gordon Melton and his "International Religions Directory Project" in the amount of $10,065.83. Family Care Fundation was created by high-ranking leaders of The Family. http://documents.guidestar.org/2000/330/734/2000-330734917-1-9.pdf (PDF document, the item listing the donation to Melton is on page 38) WalkerJ 11:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Thank you, WalkerJ. I apologize, I meant $10,000 (not $15,000. Note: I just changed the figure to 10k under the "Gordon Melton" section). In any case, the above PDF also lists the names of some of the leadership (FCF) and some of the programs and projects listed in the main article. If you would like proof of any other statements I have put forth, let me know which ones and I will provide them. Again, all information I have added to the main article can be backed up by the sources listed at the bottom of the main article. Thorwald 22:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks Thorwald for the great summary of the issues. I was an editor earlier this year (I'm not a member of the Family) and tried my best to remain NPOV in my text. I can fill in any other specific questions you might have, in particular about FCF, Pacro, Eucro, and Nacro offices, as well as a fair amount about Activated. I didn't include too many boatloads of info originally, trying to find what would be most interesting and relevant to non-members mostly. User:Gcom:Gcom 13:10, 14 Dec 2004 (PST)

Deletions by 216.70.243.114

The user 216.70.243.114 continues to remove any information on the FCF in the main article and in this discussion/talk page. This user has deleted sections of posts in this page (about FCF) that were not his or her posts. I find this practice unethical and it should be, if is isn't already, grounds for banning the user. Until this user discusses his or her deletions and gives credible reasons for such actions, I will continue to revert to the original versions. Thorwald 21:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that a 'whois' on this user's IP address (216.70.243.114) yields the following (note: bold added by me). Thorwald 04:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC):

216.70.224.0 - 216.70.255.255
Family Care Foundation FAMILY-CARE-FOUNDATION (NET-216-70-243-112-1)
216.70.243.112 - 216.70.243.127
CustName: Family Care Foundation
Address: 1373 Marron Valley Rd
City: Dulzura
StateProv: CA
PostalCode: 91917
Country: US
RegDate: 2003-08-19
Updated: 2003-08-19

  • From EBW (in France): Thank you Thorwald. That is very pertinent information indeed. It brings into question the neutrality of the poster mentioned. That poster earlier referred to others as "having an axe to grind". It is true that many ex-members of the Family do have strong negative opinions concerning the group (with good reason in my opinion). But we are at least as neutral as present members (including and particularly FCF which is a major fundraising front for the group. I can indeed factually speak for "many ex-members" on this point because I am in continual contact with many such ex-members through several ex-member boards and these points have been discussed at great length. If the pro-COG posters object to my summarizing the viewpoints of others I would be glad to ask them to come and state their opinions and their personal experiences for themselves. --EBW
    • Although I think that deleting discussions is overboard I also can see FCF objecting to their being placed in the middle of an article on the Family. Although many on the board and who work at FCF are members of the Family their organization is independant. They do not receive any oversight from Family entities such as WS and indeed are not allowed to by law. They face annual independent audits to make sure that donations go where they are supposed to. As I understand it although projects run by Family members can be eligible to receive funding they can be given no preferential treatment from other projects or organizations applying for grants. Although FCF receives a lot of flack from hostile exmembers the fact remains they are doing a good work and many disadvantaged people receive help through their efforts. Is it the intent of those posting all this on FCF to destroy a charitable and beneficial work? If so, are they ready to step in and take up the slack? --Cognomen 00:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Cognomen: Your penultimate sentence sounds like an admission that a close connection to The Family merits censure. By the way, who is going to "step in and take up the slack" when it comes to the suffering of the youth who were abused as children in The Family's "dark" days? Is Family Care Foundation going to leave that to chance and let society at large pick up the tab if it can?-- Dret, 4 January 2005
        • Cognomen: Did you notice a few years ago when FCF suddenly dropped all of it's US based charities? I was told that this was done because the IRS required too much bookeeping, and proof that these groups were actually performing the good deeds they claimed. So, rather than police these groups, FCF just stopped supporting US based charities and concentrated on third world countries where they don't ask so many difficult questions. As far as I know there is no proces in place that audits FCF supported charities to make sure they are doing anything other than living off the donations they receive. FCF itself is audited in the US, but after the money leaves Dulzura, there really isn't any accountablity that I can see. Indian Joe 02:17, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Cognomen: While I see the point you're trying to make, perhaps your argument would quickly disentigrate if we just listed the board members and officers of FCF and their affiliation with the Family. Fact is virtual every member is a member, and in partiular, every employee and officer is a member of the Family, which pretty much makes it relevant to discuss the two in the same breath. gcom 03:23, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
        • Cognomen: I have in my possession a document that is a transcript of a meeting held at FCF in which Peter Amsterdam addresses the issue of setting up the foundation and clearly states that FCF is being structured to supply the Family's need for money and that it takes the monthly tithe of 2 1/2 Family Homes to pay for a single FCF staff member. I also know of at least 2 people who were present at this meeting and can verify that the transcript is accurate. Care to take back your statement that FCF is independant of the Family? WalkerJ 07:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

New Section on the Mo Letters and GNs

I would like to suggest the addition of a section covering the topic of the Mo Letters (i.e. Berg's dreams and visions, counsel, prophecies, lectures, etc.) as well as how they were viewed by The Family's members to be God's Word for today and, in some cases, to hold precedence over Biblical scripture. A section like this has the potential to become far larger than necessary, so I think it would be wise to determine what the focus of this proposed section should be and/or if it should be expounded on further in a separate article.WalkerJ 07:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Second Generation

Perhaps it might be appropriate to list, or at least give a number of young people born in the cult who have taken their lives. We might also consider mentioning characteristics common to many young people who have left, such as depression, drug and alcohol abuse, risky behaviors, working in the sex industry, etc., while of course emphasizing that not ALL former members of the second generation have these problems. What does everyone think? ThePedanticPrick 21:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • ThePedanticPrick: I think it would be appropriate in the context that the general ideal 25-30 years ago in the COG was that the children would be raised without worldly influences, and would become some sort of Uber Christians. In other words, stack the ideal up against the behavior we are seeing in the community, which as we have experienced this week seems to be getting worse all the time. Indian Joe 02:08, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • That is a good idea. It would be nice to get some numbers for how many second generation members have left. These may be impossible to come by. ThePedanticPrick 23:43, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I have edited this section a bit to show that over 30,000 people have passed through the Family International over the past 35 years since its inception and the vast majority are not apostates. Apostates are those that criticize and condemn their former religious group or organization. The Family has few apostates in comparison to the number that have passed through the group. Also I made it clear that only some of the second generation members that were born into the group have the right to say they had no choice, but thousands of others joined by their own choice to serve God in the Family. Sweetheat
Sweetheart, do you have a source for that information? Without a source it appears to be
original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Thanks, -Willmcw
05:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • The changes I made have been removed. It seems whoever edited this has a POV, as the section again states - "The Family International calls those who cooperate with law enforcement investigations into its practices, testify for the other side in court cases involving its members, publicly express negative opinions about the group's practices and those who publically claim to have been sexually or physically abused during their childhood in the group, bitter apostates who are actively fighting against the Family. Some of the second generation of former members resent the apostate label, as most of them never chose to join this group in the first place (they were born into it) and, thus feel they cannot rightly be called apostates." -- Whoever wrote this, please substantiate this statement from the writings of the Family. This seems to be your opinion but I already cited quotations that indicate this s not the case (in the edits that you removed.)--Details 15:42, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Details: The changes I made are accurate, were written from a neutral point of view and based on the publications, statements and actions of the TF/TFI and its spokespersons. The changes I made were also in response to the prior version which stated that only a small minority of former SG members who are actively fighting the Family are labelled as apostates. I thought it would be more objective, NPOV and informative to clearly define what one has to do to be labelled as such. If I had injected my own point of view, the result would have been a critical and harsh assessment of how the Family responds to criticism and allegations of child abuse from former second generation members. The facts are the Family does indeed label those "who cooperate with law enforcement investigations, testify for the other side in court cases involving Family members, publically express negative opinions about the group and those who publically claim to have been sexually or physically abused during their time in the Family" as apostates. Sometimes they use additional qualifying adjectives like bitter or disgruntled and, as those "apostates" who have received threatening letters from spokesperson Claire Borowik can attest, are quite fond of the term, "actively fighting the Family." It does not take much to be labelled as such - simply posting a childhood memory on one of the "apostate" websites is often enough. The actions I listed that result in the apostate labels being applied are only a small subset of all the possible actions that will result in being labelled as an apostate, disgruntled detractor, bitter enemy, etc. There are plenty of examples of the use of these labels in their publications. For now, here are a few relevant quotes from one publication:

Pray, Obey and Prepare!

Introduction to the 2002 Study Month By Maria and Peter CM 3420 9/02

6. (Mama:) The battle is certainly becoming more fierce, both in the spiritual realm with the Enemy's attacks intensifying, and with our detractors and apostates becoming more determined to cause as much trouble for the Family as possible and to weaken your faith through their half-truths, exaggerations, lies, and false accusations.

11. In addition to helping us to be the witnesses and fruitful missionaries we need to be, being strong in our foundation of faith is crucial when we experience persecution and hear the accusations of apostates.

14. If you and those in your Home have made commitments to not read the accusations of our detractors and apostates, and to not go on the ex-member Web sites, Peter and I commend you. That's the best thing to do...But even if you are steering completely clear of the verbal attacks of our apostates, you still need to be prepared for eventual persecution 39. ... It's a dilemma to know how to pray the most effective prayers in situations when you're having to pray against people who were once Family members and who are now detractors or apostates who are out to do us serious damage.

87. To begin with, let's review what the Lord predicted in the CvsC series when He said: “There will be yet more apostates, more detractors with outlandish stories to test and try the hearts of the children of David. Warn the Family, let them know that this is what's happening and why. Those who receive this will be forewarned and will recognize the attacks of the Enemy when they come their way. Those who have been faithful to study and believe and come to Me and receive My seeds will stand” (ML #3361:61-62, GN 957). 88. Then in “More on the Keys” the Lord said: “There will be more false accusers and their words will test the faith of some” (ML #3351:86, GN 946). So we shouldn't be surprised that we are now seeing a new round of attacks from apostates, and that there are new voices being raised against the Family. The Lord warned us that this would come.

116. Though these apostates think this is their own doing and that they are causing major problems and disruption in your lives and work, they stand before Me as those who are blind with pride and are simply pawns in My hands...

130. It has recently been brought to our attention by some of our faithful media folks that the postings on various ex-member sites are becoming increasingly aggressive and belligerent. There are a number of detractors who are trying to rally those who have left--even those who have been friendly for years--to unite to fight the Family. They're talking about trying to hinder our work through such things as class action lawsuits, requests for law enforcement investigations, personal lawsuits against individuals, criminal complaints, use of the media, production of their stories through documentaries, books, and writings, etc. 163. (Mama:) The Lord knows we need this information to combat our enemies' attempts to destroy the Family. We need to pray both against the Enemy using our detractors and apostates, as well as misguided officials, sensationalistic reporters, deluded lawyers or publishers, and against the specific evil spirits, the Vandari, that inspire these people's ungodly actions and stories. Use the keys and the key promises to pray against our enemies, and against these vile, disgusting vandals that live in the filthy, putrid sewers of the depths of the netherworld!

Manicmoe 22:07, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

    • It may be interesting for people not familiar with Family terminology to note that in the portion of quoted material above which reads "Those who have been faithful to study and believe and come to Me and receive My seeds will stand", the reference to Jesus' "seeds" is talking about his semen. This falls in line with The Family's "Loving Jesus" doctrine, in that receiving prophecy is an intimate act like sucking Jesus' penis. If fact "sucking in the spirit" is another common Family term. --Monger 02:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Manicmoe, the quotation above does not include a definition of what the Family considers an apostate to be, but advice on how to deal with their accusations. The following quotations do define the Family's view of an apostate and support the edits that I made which you reverted:


157. And, while we must fight back against the verbal attacks of a few of our former members, those that we consider apostates and who have openly declared that they want to destroy the Family and what we stand for, the vast majority of former members do not fall into that category, as I mentioned in "The Next Focus in the Battle." The majority of those who have left the Family have the same respect for your choice to remain as you do for their choice to leave. -- Peter Amsterdam, January 22 2005.

(Maria:) There's a huge range of attitudes and relationships among our children and loved ones who have left. Some are bitter, angry, and vindictive. Others are unhappy and struggling. Others are indifferent toward the Family, or fairly content in their new lifestyle. Others remain very hungry for the Word, counsel, love and fellowship.

I don't like to dwell on the negative, but this GN is going to focus mainly on your relationship with those who have bitterness or grudges against you or against the Family, or who even go further than that and are actively working against us. But before we get into that, let me say that there are many former members who don't fall into that category at all. In fact, in comparison to the many thousands of former members, just a very small but very vocal minority fall into that category. We have many former members who still appreciate our love and communication, and do their best to stay positive and to dwell on the things we have in common. We are proud of them, and urge you to help and encourage and support and feed them spiritually in whatever ways the Lord shows you are appropriate in your situation. -- Maria (Karen Zerby), ML #3459:6–9, GN 1044, published May 2003.

  • On the topic of the Family's attitude towards former members and their grievances, it is not true to say that the leadership regards all complaints of abuse as the actions of apostates. Consider this letter, published in 1996, by Peter Amsterdam:

In October 1996, Dust and Simon (both members of the North American Continental leadership) and I met for two days in Jacksonville, Florida, with "Safe Haven" members Sharon and Pope Wilson (known in the Family as Jaakan Giant), George and Woodie Terrel, John and Linda Hardy (known in the Family as Nekoda and Bathshua) and Abraham Brosius. The purpose of this meeting was for all of us to gain a better understanding of one another, to explore ways to overcome past hurts and to find ways to prevent future problems and misunderstandings between current and former members, in an effort to heal the rift and establish a relationship of love and acceptance of each other as brothers and sisters in Christ. During this meeting there was a healthy and spirited exchange of ideas, grievances, explanations and the like. All parties went away with a better understanding of the other's point of view, which seemed to draw us all closer together, having seen and heard each other's hurts, opinions and outlook.…

We, the Family's leadership, have acknowledged that some former members were treated unfairly, harshly, and in an unloving manner, and we have officially apologized for this in a number of publications over the last few years. It is also understood that some former members have spoken out in the media against the Family, while others have actively campaigned for governmental action against the Family, all of which has resulted in Family members being harassed, Homes being raided and, in some cases, children being forcibly taken away from their parents at gunpoint. There has been hurt on both sides. However, it's important to understand that not every Family member was responsible for or caused the hurt experienced by those who left the Family, just like not every former member was responsible for the trauma suffered by Family members and their children at the hands of the media and government authorities. It would therefore be best to avoid blaming either the Family as a whole, or former members in general, for the hurt and pain experienced on either side. As stated earlier, we clearly understand that some former members have had negative and hurtful experiences in the Family. We have apologized in written publications a number of times over the last years. However, you personally may not have received a copy of these publications. The following is an excerpt from one of those publications, written by Maria in September 1995: "Likewise, if any of you ex-members who may be reading this have had negative sexual experiences while with us, or you were treated unlovingly or harshly, either before or after you left the Family, we are sorry. Our goal is to be the Lord's Family of Love, so if you suffered unloving treatment from any Family member, we ask you to please forgive us. The Lord has been teaching us all a lot about how important it is that we are loving and kind with one another. As a Family, we are asking Him to help us to love Him and others more, for without love we have nothing! So if we failed you in not being loving enough, please forgive us." (End of excerpt by Maria.) From "An Open Letter to All Current and Former Family Members", by Peter , published February 1996.

In 1994, The Family initiated a concerted reconciliation process to attempt to resolve differences with any and all former members who held grievances either from their time in The Family or from the lack of communication with Family members after they departed. In 1994 and 1995, in open letters to former members, Family leadership officially addressed concerns in regard to any questionable past actions of individuals regarding discipline, education, or sexual misconduct that any may have undergone from 1978 to 1985 before clear guidelines were articulated. These apologies were published and have been reiterated in official Family publications over the years. The Family's Charter (first published in 1995) also advises parents to assume responsibility for assisting their children through what can be a difficult transition from a close, nurturing, faith-based support system to an independent secular lifestyle. --Statement by Claire Borowik for The Family International, January 2005.


I will restate the position I put in the edits: A neutral analysis of the Second Generation of the Family should include commentary on those who remain in the movement (taking into account, for examples, the hundreds of opinions written by Second Generation Members posted at www.myconclusion.com); those who leave for various reasons, but either do not or do not vocalise public criticisms; and those who have a critical approach. Don't all three groups deserve space in the analysis, if it is going to be a factual portrayal of the second generation?--Details 14:51, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

  • In my understanding of NPOV, it requires for all three groups' voices to be represented. Mandolin 11:18, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Richard Rodriguez / Davidito

It appears the recent paragraph or paragraphs about Richard Rodriguez and his murder/suicide are becoming more of a news column (or story) than an excerpt from an encyclopedic article. I agree that Mr. Rodriguez (and Angela Smith) are intricately tied to the history of this group and that he was the son and "heir" of Karen Zerby and David Berg. This news or information is certainly related to this group. However, is there a way to include him in this article in a more general and historical way without becoming a news article? These are just thoughts. What does everyone else think? Thorwald 22:07, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • My thought was that it was anachronistic to tell the story of what happened this year in the section "The Family 1975-1986" Perhaps a paragraph of the Story of Davidito is appropriate in this section, while recent events could be moved into a new section (titled "Davidito" or simply "Recent Events"), or into "The Second Generation" or "The Family International 1994-present" ThePedanticPrick 22:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notable former members

Thorwald why do you keep del these names? I think they are relevant, esp Philip Sherwood/James Penn. He has written things linked from this page, why can't his name stay? Audiofree

  • Because this section is intended for current and former leaders. Not everyone and anyone who was a member. I don't see how these names are relevant. There are thousands of former members and, it appears, many of them have written stuff about this group. What does everyone else think? Thorwald 06:39, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not anyone and everyone! You seam to have a reason to keep these names off, what is it? Philip Sherwood has much more to do with the history of the family then onther names on this list.Audiofree
    • I also find it odd that you would say “That is how the document is signed” when editing out Sherwoods name from his article. Are you disputing the fact that Sherwood is Penn? If not, then isn’t having his full name more informative to the reader? I find it odd that you are trying to hide that fact, unless you have some other motive for doing so. --Audiofree
      • Audiofree: You are reading too much into this. Also, unless you know otherwise, I would kindly ask that you do not jump to conclusions on my intentions. I could turn the question around and ask you, "Why do you want these names in the article so badly?" The references list all the names in the leadership section. There is no guessing on who is who. I have not found any reference to his name. I am sorry, but my vote is still against listing these names. I do not see how these former members have "more to do with the history" of this group than the other names in this section? Wouldn't top leaders be far more influential and pertinent to this article? Wouldn't Karen Zerby and Steven Kelly be far more pertinent? Do you have proof otherwise? Again, everything I contribute to this article is backed up by references and sources. I would encourage you to do the same. PS: Once again, please sign each-and-every paragraph you post. Thorwald 00:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I would say his name is more relevant then Arnold Dietrich, Victor Landivar Trigoso, and some of the “WS” and “Creations” names that I’ve never heard of. What’s the harm in listing him? --Audiofree
        • What sources are you looking for? That he was in the family? That he was a “Notable” former member? Those are undisputed facts as far as I know. What else do you need to stop deleting the entry? Your reasoning is that we “can’t add every former member” I find invalid, as there are 2 names on the list… If there were 100s I may agree with you. Why do you get to decide what names do and do not get posted? I think you have to have better reason then that to take down someone’s edit no? As far as sources, all I’m saying is, he’s a former member that notable! Why? Because he spent many years in creations, and wrote a wide spread article about why he left, I find that notable. I’m sorry if you don’t, but I don’t think that’s reason enough to delete someone’s edit. --Audiofree
          • If the critera for making someone a notable member is that they have been vocal about their experiences in the Family, then that would also justify listing the legal names of people like Mene, Jules, Daniel Albatross, Celeste, Watchman, and many others who have either appeared in the media frequently or publicly voiced their opinion of the Family. I doubt this was the intention behind the creation of this section. In my opinion, a notable member would need to be someone the public is more likely to recognize, such as Jeremy Spencer, the Phoenix family, etc. Since these name have already been listed in a previous section, I nomiate that the Notable Former Member section be removed. Since there are links listed in the article to websites containing both Phil's and Ed's writings, I believe this should be enough of a reference to them. WalkerJ 19:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • I second that nomination. ThePedanticPrick 20:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm not certain that pop-stardom is the criteria for inclusion (although I'm sure that wasn't JWalker's intent to imply) however, I agree that so far the Notable former members really doesn't have anyone notable by standards of importance to current events or general interest. So I vote to remove as well. --Gecom
          • Well, at 4-to-1 I would think we have enough votes to remove this section. What does everyone think? I would prefer that someone else remove these names, however, if no one does it soon I will. Thorwald 05:56, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:08, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Children of God
Currently known as "The Family" or "The Family International," the Children of God organization has been known for its practices of using sex to entice people to join. This obsolete practice, referred to as "Flirty Fishing," resulted in the organization being banned in several countries. Press mention: ABC TV:'Prince' of Former Cult Commits Murder-Suicide

New Religious Movement (NRM)

Andries: Why do you find the interwiki language material on NRMs "erroneous" with respect to the Children of God? I happen to speak German (fluently) and the following is certainly related (and one doesn't need to understand German to understand this): Kinder Gottes (oder "Children of God"/"The Family"),... (from one of the links you removed). —Thorwald 03:48, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I only removed the erroneous links to the other languages that referred to the general coresponding articles on NRMs. Oh, and I just started the German article de:Kinder Gottes. Could you please check and expand? I did not remove any external link. Andries 19:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Andries: Sure. I will look over the German article and add some stuff. In fact, I could just translate the English version. I will only do this when I have some free time (and am very board ;) Thorwald 20:07, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

naming names

      • The Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates is a resource for any editor. That page has a list of community members who can serve as an advocate or intermediary. Probably all of them can be communicated with confidentially by way of the e-mail links on their user pages. If there is a situation where a public discussion is not called for, then making use of an advocate may be a way to resolve it. Cheers, -Willmcw 04:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Recent teachings

      • The language and concepts in these publications may be easily compared to medieval mysticism, as explored by some of the visionaries such as Mechthild of Magdeburg (c. 1210-1280). According to the Handbook of Christian mysticism (Michael Cox, the Aquarian press), Mechthild's visions were "influenced by the language and imagery of the liturgy and religious art and also by the secular poetry of courtly love, which occasional coats her ecstasies with a kind of elevated eroticism; she speaks, for instance, of being taken into the divine arms of Christ, and being kissed by Him, and of enduring His absence. She in turn is complemented; she is God's desire a cooling presence to His breast, a caress to His mouth." (page 86-87)
      • The erotic imagery of the Song of Solomon, the analogy of the bride, is also remarked upon by the British preacher of the 19th century, C.H. Spurgeon, who spoke on this subject on various occasions. In one of his sermons at the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit in the year 1874 (Volume X.X. page 487), he writes: "I am so glad that Jesus loves me. Oh for a blessed grip with both hands on such a Christ as this! Observe well that he is ours as our Beloved, so that he is ours as whatever our love makes of him. ... We are his because he bought us with his blood, his because he called us by his grace, his because he is married to us, and we are his spouse." And so forth.
      • The edits I made took into account this and other similar historical material, commentaries on bridal theology and so on. Rather than being remarkably unusual, the teachings in "Loving Jesus" appear as a development of existing thoughts, in contemporary language. This comparative aspect of Family teachings would be worthwhile to explore further. --Details 22:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
        • I have changed this to "of-age" followers and deleted the reference to children. In one of the original letters on this subject that was written by way of explanation to 14-15 year olds, Karen Zerby writes "As you read these GNs, you'll want to remember that this new way of loving the Lord is a private matter. It's not for public meetings or groups. Also, it's not for children, so please be very careful and prayerful that you don't discuss the details of this revelation with the JETTs or children" (3029jnr:32.) Thorwald has commented that he regards 14 year olds as children. My dictionary defines a child as "a young human being: a young human being between birth and puberty" or "somebody not yet of age: somebody under a legally specified age who is considered not to be legally responsible for his or her actions." In looking at these definitions 14 year olds are certainly over the age of puberty and also in many countries at or over the legal age of consent. For instance the legal age of consent in Italy, Portugal, and Germany is 14, and in Spain it is 13. In some countries it is admittedly a little older but then in others it is younger. These are leading nations in Europe and it seem they don't regard 14 year olds as being too young for sexual experiences either. Therefore it would seem that to be objective and NPOV the "including children" has to go.--Cognomen2 17:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Other

Is this really so unusual?

Whether or not having a sexual relationship with one's deity is mainstream or not is immaterial to the purpose of this article. Mainstream means different things to different people; let's please just state the facts, not opinions. I think long descriptions of historical, er, Jesus-loving is un-called-for. A brief description of it as the Family practices it, along with some links to pages which provide the historical context is fine. Otherwise, this article becomes conflated and unreadable. ThePedanticPrick 18:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My guru told me more or less to do the same. Andries 19:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

One of the more unusual teachings Zerby has propagated, her encouragement to followers to engage in a spiritual sexual relationship with Jesus stands out as the most unusual. Male members of the group are encouraged to visualize themselves as women "in the spirit" during masturbation or intercourse in order to accommodate this practice.

  • In that case, do you not agree with the amendment that I had posted which has now been removed? I don't understand why it was taken off. --Details 21:07, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Zerby's encouragement to followers to engage in a spiritual sexual relationship with Jesus stands out as an extension of medieval mystical teaching, echoing the intimate language of the Biblical Song of Solomon. Female and male members of the group are encouraged to visualize themselves as the wife of Christ "in the spirit" during masturbation or intercourse in order to accommodate this practice. This doctrine is explained in the Family publications Loving Jesus Part 1 and Loving Jesus Part 2, see below for links to these.

  • Details: The reasons I removed your text are simply because they do not fall under
    Wikipedia:NPOV. Your explanation is inconsistent with the record (see "The Loving Jesus Series"). This is not a normal, historical practice. I think most will agree that it is very non-mainstream. You can have your opinion, of course, but it does not belong on a NPOV encyclopaedia. Thorwald
    22:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Love Words to Jesus:

For those of you who may have a hard time thinking of love words to say to the Lord, we're including the following list of examples. Besides saying these types of words to Jesus, you might even want to say some of these things to your mate or loved one when making love together.

Less Erotic:

* I want You, need You, desire You, yearn for You ...

* I want You to kiss me, caress me, touch me ...

* I love Your kisses, caresses, touches, Words of love, seeds ...

* Come! I'm here for You.

* Oh please, I want You!

* I want Your seeds.

* My darling. My sweetheart. My precious Love. My Bridegroom.

* Come and lie in the bed of love with me.

* I want to be in love with You, Jesus.

* Come to Me, Jesus! Be here with me and love me. Let's hold each other and say words of love to each other.

* Come to my bed, come to my arms, come to my kisses, to my lips!

* Come into me, I want to be one with You.

* Kiss me, caress me, love me, fill me completely.

* I want to lie in Your arms.

* Hold me, I love You. Come fill me.

* I want to woo You, Jesus, and to be wooed by You.

* I want You inside of me! Give me Your seeds.

* I want to make You happy by kissing You, and by loving You in whatever way You wish.

* Your wonderful touches and kisses make me happy.

* Please satisfy me.

* I want Your kisses.

* I kiss You.

* Touch me, love me. I want to be one with You.

* I'm open for You.

* Fill me.

* I surrender to You, Jesus. I'm all Yours. Take hold of me.

* I need You, Jesus. I want You, Jesus. Hold me.

* You excite me, Jesus, and I want to feel Your love. I want to excite You, too!

* Jesus, You're the Lover of all lovers.

* Teach me how to love You.

* I love You so much, my dear Darling, my wonderful Sweetheart and marvelous Lover, my faithful Husband!

* I'm Yours and I'm one with You, Jesus.

* I'm in love with You as My Lover, My Husband and My Bridegroom!

* I'm all Yours, and I give You everything.

* You make me feel so good.

More Erotic:

* I'm all naked for You, Jesus, and desperate for Your love! Come to me.

* I want to enjoy You, Jesus, to look at You, to taste You, to feel You, to fuck You!

* I've got to have You in my arms. I've got to feel Your naked body pressed to mine.

* I'm getting so hot for You! I've got to have Your lips on mine!

* You turn me on!

* Your touch is so tender, it makes me feel so loved, so secure, so warm, so wanted.

* You're beautiful, Jesus, and so sexy--sexier than I ever dreamed--so handsome, so naked and so hard!

* You draw me near, and my heart skips a beat. I tremble under Your touch.

* Your touch melts me. It moves me, stimulates me, sends me.

* Touch me through the hands that You made. Possess me!

* I'm really getting horny for You, Jesus.

* I want to feel all Your love and all Your passion!

* Jesus, show me what I can do to You to make You feel good.

* I want to excite You and give You pleasure and satisfy You, as You excite and please and satisfy me.

* Jesus, I'll do anything for You. I'll do anything to give You pleasure. Let me satisfy You. Teach me what You like best.

* I want to show You how hot and horny and passionate I am for You!

* I want to enjoy You. I take pleasure in caressing You, kissing You, fondling You.

* I want to know You completely--every inch of You.

* I want to kiss You everywhere.

* I want to suck Your penis. I want to suck Your seeds!

* I'm wild about You! I'm crazy about Your penis!

* My pussy is excited for You, Jesus!

* I'm juicy for You.

* I'm prepared, Jesus. I'm wet. I'm wanting You.

* I'm so excited and I'm so horny for You, Jesus!

* I want to feel the ecstasies of Your love!

* You've got to fuck me now!

* Yes, yes, I want more! I want more than words. I want more than spiritual communications! I want to feel it, I want to know it, in my heart and in my body and in my spirit.

* I can't wait any longer!--I'm overcome with desire for You, for Your penis, for Your seeds.

* I can't wait. I've got to have You, Jesus! Your love excites me! I've got to have You inside me!

* I crave You, Jesus. I'm hot for You! My legs are spread to receive Your penis! Enter into me! Give me Your seeds.

* I'm desperate for Your big, hard penis! I crave it, because I want Your seeds!

* I need Your penis! I need to feel You explode inside me, giving me Your seeds!

* I receive Your love, Lord, with open arms and open legs and a receptive heart.

* I'm Yours. I give myself to You in complete surrender, for Your pleasure. Do whatever You want with me.

* Come into me, Jesus. Fuck me. Make me go, Jesus!

* Fuck me! Take me!

* Hurry, Jesus! I need You now.

* Fuck me long and hard and deep. I want to feel You in the very heart of me. Longer, harder, deeper!

* I can't get enough of You. I have to have all of You!

* Come, Jesus! Oh please, come!

* I can't do without Your seeds. Please give them to me!

* Yes, yes! Fuck me, fuck me! Don't stop! Don't stop! I want You! I need You! Give me Your seeds!

* Fill me with Your seeds. Flood me with Your seeds. Explode in me!

* Give me more, more, more. Don't stop until I have every drop of Your love, every one of Your seeds.

* It feels so good to have You inside me, Jesus! I've never known such pleasure, such ecstasy.

* Jesus, I'm lost in Your love. With every thrust of Your penis You take me higher and higher.

* Don't stop! Don't ever stop fucking me! Let this thrill, this ecstasy, go on and on and on and on forever!

* Your penis drives me wild. I'm out of control, but don't stop!

* I went for You.

* Oh my Darling, my Darling, how I love to fuck You! How I love to be fucked by You!

* I've never known such joy and satisfaction as this!

* Jesus, You're the best! No other love can compare.

* Thank You for wanting me, for desiring me, for exciting me. Thank You for wanting to fuck me and become one with me and give me Your seeds.

* Thank You for giving Yourself to me so freely, so completely. Thank You for letting me explore Your naked body in all its majesty--to hold You, to kiss You, to suck You, to fuck You.

* You're so wonderful! Source: Cool Tips for Hot Sex! http://www.exfamily.org/pubs/ml/b2/b_cooltp_sc.shtml

Manicmoe 12:37, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      • Manicmoe I am not sure why you are assuming Detail is ashamed of it. Putting something in context does not denote shame. However, you seem to think it is something to snicker at by your attitude here. Sure the Family takes Bridal Theology, which we term Loving Jesus, to an extreme but that doesn't mean the actual concept of Bridal Theology is not accepted by many Christians in many churches over the centuries since Christianity's inception. If we were ashamed of it then we wouldn't be defending it here. Let's get away from being petty. --Cognomen2 16:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Cognomen2 Please explain (in detail and cite your sources) exactly which "churches over the centuries since Christianity's inception" accept saying love words to Jesus while masturbating or having sex. I have not found a single one. I have read the Family's statement about Loving Jesus and bridal theology which you or Details paraphrased (without correctly citing it) and they do not cite a single source who claims that saying love words to Jesus while masturbating has been an accepted part of Christianity for centuries. I have also read numerous Family publications in which Family members explicitly describe their reactions to the Loving Jesus doctrine and their experiences putting it into practice. Unlike you, these true believers are not ashamed of their faith and many of them freely admit that at first they found it shocking and radical and that it took them awhile to get used to the idea. They acknowldege that it is a very new doctrine and none of them claim that saying love words to Jesus while masturbating has been an accepted part of Christianity for centuries. The Family's internal publications don't use weasel-speak like "it may include some elements of sexuality." Instead they are open and honest and have many very graphic and explicit instructions to help members practice "Loving Jesus." As far as I am concerned, a Wikipedia entry about a religious practice that most of the world is not familiar with needs to accurately and specfically describe the practice and its history. Manicmoe 06:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Thorwald I think Details has a valid point here. One moment you are decrying censorship and the next moment you are playing the censor deciding what is valid or not. You can't have it both ways. Yes I am back. Haven't been on for so long that I even forgot my old password so had to log in as Cognomen2. --Cognomen2 03:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Thorwald, I do not deny that most people would consider this practice of dedication of sexual desire to Jesus unusual but there are various traditions both inside and outside Christianity who have beliefs and practices somewhat similar to the COG in this respect. There are several Cristian mystical medieval poets who talk about being the bride of Jesus. Andries 07:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Cognomen2: Welcome back! There is a difference, in my mind, between Details deleting a link to the "Ricky Video" and my deleting POV work. I will put the same question as I did to Details to you (since both of you, and Audiofree, are current members of this group): What about this Loving Jesus practice is mainstream? How do we present the information in a NPOV way? How do we inform the reader that this practice is, by most people's standards, a bit bizzare? Thorwald 18:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
            • Thorwald: Thank you for the welcome! Well, I would have to contend that the difference does indeed lie in your mind. If you contend that linking the Ricky video is NPOV and a short paragraph trying to explain something to be POV is indeed a very subjective argument on your part. I think Loving Jesus is at its essence fairly normal to Christianity, that being that Christians have a relationship with the Saviour that even the Apostle Paul said was like a marriage (Rom.7:4). The Family just takes it to its logical conclusion, and that is all the way to believers being both individually and collectively the Bride of Christ and doing things wives and husbands do. To debunk that you have to debunk the whole idea of believers having a bridal relationship with Jesus and if you debunk that you have to throw out the Bible. I would write this section in a nice NPOV way except I am pretty sure you or one of the others would delete it if the matter was treated fairly and factually. So, here in lies my dilemma. On another subject, I am not sure who deleted Andries's comments below but that seems to be against the rules isn't it?--Cognomen2 19:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
              • Cognomen: If by "deleted" you mean crossed-out, the 'history' reveals that it was Andries who did that. I agree, it should be against the rules. I will answer you other points later. I need to get some work done. All the best! Thorwald 20:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Thorwald, we should not write that most or some people consider this belief bizarre. We should state facts (i.e. describe notable aspects or their beliefs and practices) and not spoonfeed the reader with opinions and conclusions about the group. This is not a magazine article but an encyclopedia. Andries 18:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Andries: I couldn't agree more with you. Believe me, that is exactly what I want for this article. I maintain that it is a bizarre belief, but that is only my POV and my POV does not belong in this article (I can, however, use it in this discussion). Thorwald 20:12, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If these dudes want to believe in bridal theology, who is to say that is wrong. From my study of the group, the Loving Jesus revelation is a personal matter between the person and Jesus. So what they want to personally believe and pratice is a freedom given to them by the Constitution of the USA, no? I don't think they are forcing it on anyone. I would suppose most people have their belief system which they feel is their right and no one elses can tell them how to believe. There are some pretty weird belief systems in America, or which the COGs is just one of them, so what? That is what made America so great and so free. —Sweetheat

  • I re-wrote the section on 'Loving Jesus' to reduce the verbosity and the some of the "unusual" POV. In Wikipedia, we're better off just summarizing, in an NPOV manner, the verfiable information about a group (including the comments of notable critics). -Willmcw 04:29, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


"It is possible this was prompted in part by clinical blindness that she developed during the 1990s." I removed this sentence because it simply is not the case. All you have to do is look at Karen's pictures on various internet sites to see that she is anything but legally blind. She sees as well as anyone from the information I have received from those that live with her. On top of that this is quite a presumption on someone's part as to why channeling came about in the group I think. I suppose we want to keep this as factual as we can and not put in our suppositions and theories, since that has no relevance to and encyclopedia entry on a group. —Sweetheat

  • There is a discussion of Zerby's eyseight in this forum [7]. I wouldn't rely on forums as sources, but are you saying that all of what they say is incorrect? -Willmcw 04:49, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm simply saying Karen sees as well as anyone and is not even a little blind. She has very good vision. Her eyes are often sore because she has dry eyes, but she uses her eyes when needed, and keeps them closed when she doesn't. That is fact. —Sweetheat
    • Where would one view a recent picture or video of Zerby? The article indicates that such images are hard to find. Thanks -Willmcw 07:26, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • Will, here are some pics of Karen Zerby [8]. I don't know the copyright status. Andries 07:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
        • There are more recent pictures of Kim Joing-Il. ;). That's ok, I'm not sure how one can diagnose blindness from a photograph anyway. It appears that in the wake of the Rodriguez matter there have been a number of newspaper articles on the COG and Zerby. We should be able to rely on those for the recent material. Thanks, -Willmcw 08:40, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentalist?

Does the COG really consider itself to be a

fundamentalist Christian
denomination? Does it adhere to the "five pillars":

  • Inerrancy of the Scriptures
  • The virgin birth (or deity) of Jesus
  • The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
  • The bodily resurrection of Jesus
  • The miracles (or, alternatively, the second coming) of Jesus Christ

The COG does not strike me as a conventional fundamentalist group. -Willmcw 07:14, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • Willmcw: The Family International's "Statement of Faith" can be found here. [9] I think you will find that we do adhere to each of the five pillars. Dr. J Gordon Melton places us in the broader Fundamentalist movement and traces our roots to Fundamentalism in his book The Children of God--The Family published by Signature Books. So although I personally wouldn't say we are conventional fundamentalists, if adhering to the five pillars places us wihtin Fundamentalism then we are. If you are looking for info on our beliefs, even the more unusual ones that have been treated so cavalierly by some in this article, you can find it here. [10] Hope this is a help.--Cognomen2 19:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, that clarifies it. -Willmcw 05:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • I have added some more information about the Family's beliefs, above the section "Recent Teachings", as it seems odd to only discuss recent teachings without looking at the basic theology of a religious movement. --Details 22:14, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • The section I added has been deleted. Why? The section I added was a neutral, third party assessment of the basic beliefs of this religious movement. If it was too lengthy or there was another problem with it, please could whoever removed it explain the reasons why? --Details 15:33, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Details: I explained the reasons why I removed the Teachings section in the Teachings and Practices section above. I did not see your post here or I would have responded here as well. For your benefit, I will explain my reasons again. 1. You put the Teachings section in the 1994-present section which is not the right place unless you only want to cover Recent teachings and there is already a section for that called Recent teachings in the 1994-present section. There is a good and obvious reason why a section titled Recent teachings only examines recent teachings rather than examining the basic theology of a religious meovement. 2. If such a section is needed and it is put in the apropriate place, it needs to have more content that briely summarizes the Family's teachings and theology and not just long quotes which some have agreed are poor style. Two very long quotes are not very useful or helpful to readers. It would be better to write something that summarizes the theology of the Family. It's fine to cite your sources and even use brief quotes make a point but there needs to be more content than these very long quotes. Manicmoe 23:00, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Family history 1985-1994

The original text seemed unbalanced, with many paragraphs on the sexuality and abuse issues, and very little on what other developments occured in the the movement at this time. I have tried to redress this and added more general information. I have included citations which may be too long in the final text, but I wanted you to see the sources for what I have changed. (By the way, I'm Details2 who was earlier Details - I was away and forgot my password. --Details2 30 June 2005 17:54 (UTC)

List of former leaders

I deleted this small section. I don't see the point in having it there. The movement has had a history of almost 40 years and there are undoubtedly scores of people who could be listed as "former leaders". The movement's variable structure has meant that it is likely that almost every current member over the age of 30, if not younger, has held a leadership position at some point in time, whether on a local, area, national, regional or continental level. Listing about a half dozen alleged "former leaders" doesn't convey any useful information that I can see. --Details2 30 June 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Secrecy

I have removed the name of the person who allegedly committed the legal offense of fraud. I checked out the link that was there originally, and did not see any verification about this incident, and I do not think we should published unsubstantiated criminal accusations against a named individual unless there is some verifiable corroboration (legal document). --Details2 5 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Family_International/Archive_4&oldid=840252375"