Reframing Family-think: I did not "join" the family!

Going back to the beginning of this discussion regarding the different generations in the family, there is an assumption that is a fallacy, and I have bought that fallacy for some time now.
The fallacy is: "We (FG) "joined" the family." That is how we worded it in the family and how exers, incl me, have worded it since leaving. But the definition of "joining" implies active intent as in a person who seeks out a group and becomes a part of it. What fits better is replacing "joined" with "were recruited". When a person is "recruited" they are sought out by the org. or person who engages others to work for or join their service/group.
There is a huge difference here. Did we seek to join or did the family seek us out? "Enlist" is another term. We were approached (majority)and engaged to "join".
The family targeted specific people. People who were YOUNG, often FROM UPPER MIDDLE CLASS families. Some youth were out on the streets and deeply discouraged or into addictions, others were in universities or out at events and held high ideals but without finding any really good answers. Here was the family which presented itself as something that had all the answers and the "best" cause. One that addresses body, mind and soul.
What saddens me about this board at times is that I see some of the same terms and techniques that were used in the family to get people to feel or think one certain way and there is an unwillingness at times to be open-minded to discuss what goes against board belief.
There is a huge assumtion that FG's "joined", were sex-crazed hippies, (Didn't Berg say that about us FG's in some letter where he tried to scapegoat FGs for his own perverse desires and doctrines?) I hope that we across generations don't fall into the same trap of a stamp of approval for one way to think. Especially when seems at times to be so much like what Berg himself taught.