An Open Letter to those defending Berg

Dear WG and Anti-Anti Berg Bashers:

After reading reposter's posts on MO's position on incest and adult/child sex I find it hard to believe that anyone, including WG, can find any room to see exposure of these facts as Berg Bashing.

In looking over the latest quotes from Mo he identifies his interest or fixation on sexuality starting at three years old. I also think that WG's point that nothing was mentioned about Berg's mother slapping the women who performed oral sex on young Mo is really off point and an attempt to excuse Mo's real motives. How does that excuse Mo's point of view that oral sex on a child is acceptable?

The real issue is that Berg saw no harm in what the woman did to him. Mo notes that it could not be wrong by saying "it stands to reason that if it feels good at that age, then the Lord intended for kids to get used to feeling good with sex."
In addition Mo notes: "There's nothing in the world at all wrong with sex as long as it's practised in love, whatever it is or whoever it's with, no matter what age or what relative or what manner! You don't hardly dare even say these words in private!

The Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology notes the following:(Author Lauri R. Harding)

"Pedophilia encompasses simple voyeurism of nude children, observing children at various stages of undress or assisting them to undress, sexual fondling, exposing oneself, performing oral sex on/or requesting them to return oral sex, or mutual masterbation. In most cases(except those involving incest) pedophiles do not require penetration, and do not force their attentions on a child. They instead rely on quile, persuasion and friendship, often displaying great tenderness and affection toward the child of their desire. Once a person has engaged in sexual activity with a child, he or she is then additionally labeled a "child molester." Thus, child molestation is subsumed in the overall condition of pedophilia."

Mo is blatent in his views on incest and sexual contact with children in word and deed. In his behaviour he has demonstrated clearly that he is a molester and a pedophile. In his discussion of incest Mo presents an open window into the criminal nature of his abuse. He recognizes it is against the law but uses biblical references to negate these laws. He also has the support and encouragement of Maria who suggests its practice should be hidden.( I consider that a willingness to lie)

Mo uses Paul's "all things are lawful" in order to justify the criminal molestation of children in an incestuous way. Notice how he focuses on incest with children rather than with siblings. He also gets into discussion of how age should not have anything to do with sex.

In her definition Harding also notes:

" Pedophiles often indicate to authorities that the child solicited sexual contact or activity, and also claim that the child derives as much sexual pleasure from the activity as the perpetrator. Pedophiles also excuse their behaviour as non-harmful, non violent, non forced, even "educational" for the child. They often do not see themselves as abusers, molesters or sexually deviant. This quality of being in denial as to the true harm they may cause belies the fact that clearly, most pedophiles act for their own gratification and not that of the child."

One of the serious mistakes that Mo made was assuming that children are capable of giving consent for sexual contact with adults. His sole focus really was his own obsession with sexuality. He used the dedication of others to turn the family into a personal relection of his sexual deviancy.

Mo convinced himself that molesting children was not a sin and that it was actually good for them. Mo practiced incestuous pedophilia and non-incestuous pedophilia with no regard to the victims, his own or their families or the movement as a whole. Maria also believes this doctrine and wanted to continue in the family.

In my opinion WG, and possibly at the cost of being hurtful to our friendship, I think your constant dwelling on the term of Berg Bashing and the negative agenda is one long personal attack, dissmissive of the facts and a disservice to the many victims. You refuse to refute or criticize Berg without justification out of a sense of inspired rightousnes via the "Word" of God. You downgrade any "worldly" person's views and dismiss them. This is very ironic to me as any person with common sense can see via MO's own words that he was a long-time pervert. In my opinion you really have no factual legs to stand on in this matter.

Over the length of this debate you also have frequently tried to excuse the issue or minimize it. Mo's criminal behaviour and sytsematic sexual abuse of the family has destroyed any of its fruitfulness as a group. Using personal attacks pumped up by selective application of scripture will not negate the truth about Mo and it will not wash on this board.

I can understand that you want to take what is good a useful out of the experience but I am not willing to accept your attempts to cloud the central issue of Mo's criminality.

In closing I recognize that you have strong convictions and that you have a right to post them here. You can be as selective as you want about how you respond to the "anti-Berg faction" but the reality of what Mo has done is not going to be explained away by you or anyone else. Any time you attempt to negate the evils that were done or cloud the issue you are going to be challenged. You will not be able to avoid being brought to task over your posts when you try to justify or explain away the doctrines of abuse that Mo inflicted on us all.

In addition, ranting that we are just like the old chain leaders will not work. You will never be able to use those old saws to excuse the fact that Mo twisted the Word and destroyed himself and others with it. This is a democracy and there is too much evidence to support the reality of this fact.

It may well be that you would be happier posting on the Pro Family Board. The heat of this kitchen will only get hotter each time you attempt to negate the facts and testimonies of others.

Sincerely, Rocky