Posted by Reader on April 06, 2006 at 22:06:35
In Reply to: It says it was last updated in 2001. (NT) posted by noticing on April 06, 2006 at 18:54:58:
Overall the article is too positive and rosy for me, and seems to quote a lot of pro-F sources, and maybe I thought about what was happening at wikipedia when I posted what I did. There are different versions of this page on the web archives
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Family.html
You can see there were updates in earlier versions, but it has remained pretty much the same since 2002. This site had its history framework online about 2001. Whether it was or wasn't a spin off of that framework page, regardless, it has too much F spin for my taste.
It's all a matter of perspectives. I have trouble with statements like "An international media campaign ensued which proved to be in cahoots with both anti-cultist as well as ex-members who provided both the impetus as well as the accusations which fueled the raids. As in all the other cases, the charges proved to be without merit."
TF just happened to get away with what they did to their children in so many countries. We, as ex-members know there was abuse and there certainly was merit to many of the charges.
Statements like "In 1994, things settled down, and the Family was able to return to the peace that they previously enjoyed" really bug me.
What peace did they previously enjoy? You mean the constant turmoil, big issues, atmosphere of fear? You mean the time Berg had to flee America? You mean the time we got kicked out of ____(FILL)___? We as ex-members know better.
There are discrepancies to statements like "it became apparent in later years that inappropriate sexual encounters had occurred to some degree with minors in the early '80's. The Family responded by laying out stringent policies in this regard in the mid '80's, rendering any kind of sexual encounter with a minor an excommunicable offence."
We as ex-members know that leadership encouraged the inappropriate behaviour. Even the Lord Justice Ward concluded that they were behind it. We know that they didn't put a stop to this in the mid 80's but a few years later, when they had to, for the "system's" sake. We also know that they haven't excommunicated every single member that violated those rules.
We also know that the MWM popularity was never that much of a big deal. It was TF which made a big deal out of it, with boosted stats about the gazillions witnessed to.
My perspectives again, but I even have trouble with summaries about Deborah's book. Deborah did not merely write a book that "attacked" TF presenting a "very ugly" picture. I would have emphasized she wrote a book about her experience, her escape, and presented the inside story. I also disagree that it was the impetus for public attacks. That is TF's version to blame everything on Deborah. The impetus was already there.
Well I could go on and on, but I'll stop here.