doctored CM publications on XM sites?

(I posted this on NDN a few hours ago, and there are a couple responses if you're interested, from Jules and Sam).


Hi guys! I just read this at the Family youth group, and it raised my curiosity. Does anyone have any original CM publications to prove that what has been posted on these sites are actually doctored-up? Below is what I read and what I wrote:



Hello to all. Firstly I'm an exmember and I rarely come to this site and have only posted a few times. I will be upfront to say that I do not support the Family nor do I endorse it. But that is my personal life and I won't get into it.

But I have a question concerning this post from Joan Clair (by the way, hello JC, I hope all is going well with you!) and Angie (Angie I wrote you about this but I'm just very curious in finding out some more details):

{From: "joan_clair"
Date: Thu Jul 24, 2003 3:03 pm
Subject: Re: to be in the family or not to be ?

I'll second this, it's sad how much is foisted on the ignorant masses
in the name of "Family publications" :S

--- In , Angie D wrote:
> You can't go on the XM boards if you want to read the
> real Gn's. for the most part anyway they are always
> doctored up. if they were in their origional text then
> it would be too convicting for them to post. }

My main question is specifically what documents have been doctored and more specifically, which sections of those documents? I am not referring to any personal correspondence between leadership and individuals, unless someone has the original letters to prove their authenticity, as personnel correspondence is too much heresay, but actual recent (or even ancient) publications which have been posted and debated on XM sites.

Of course there is a slight problem in that it is against the group's rules for CM members to allow CM publications into the hands of non-CM persons, so I am puzzled as to how I would be able to verify any misrepresentations without having the originals in my hand as well? Any suggestions? I am sure you are a group to be trusted, but in the world I live in, without solid proof it is almost impossible to convince others of your case, I unfortunately don't live in a world where just your word is enough.

Thanks for the help. Responses from people who have actually checked those CM publications posted on XM sites and can specifically list the misrepresentations would be greatly appreciated.

(If I find that there are genuine misrepresentations then please believe that I will post an article to point it out and give as much proof as I can to support it and show that we -the XMs- were deceived or mislead.)

Once again, thanks!