A repost of the discussion at Wikipedia

• Would you mind pointing out where exactly it states that the term "cult" is to be avoided? 217.43.182.194 23:41, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  
  
  • Here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AWords_to_avoid#Cult I think that in this case, one should state who considered it a cult and why. Andries 21:02, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    
    
    • I'm being flip I know, but the article might be shorter if we just concentrated on who DOESN'T consider it a cult and why. I think you'll find that everyone involved aside (obviously) from current members, considers the COG or TF a cult. --author?
      
      
    • BTW I can't help noticing that the WordsToAvoid page has been edited by you, including strengthening the wording of the Cults bit.217.44.18.45 12:34, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      
      
      • From EBW: If there has been editing to the WordsToAvoid page, I see no reason to respect edited details. Doesn't sound like a very ethical thing to do. --EBW
        
        
    • This group fits _your_ definition of a cult: "small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society." 24.21.145.249
      
      Andries: I agree with the other person's comment on _you_ being the one who edited the Wikipedia:Words to avoid - Cult section. This seems more of your issue rather than a Wikipedia one. Why do you dislike the word 'cult' so much? Who decides what is derogatory and proper use, etc.? This group fits the definition of a cult pretty well and I think you will find most academics agree (see links at bottom of Children of God page). 24.21.145.249
      

Please read the guidelines of Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "Some of the exceptions to this rule of the thumb is the technical use this term has in sociology, which is quite neutral (i.e. small religious group with novel religious beliefs and a high degree of tension with the surrounding society). However, the author shouldn't use the term in that sense without explaining exactly what you are doing, since that meaning is unfamiliar to most people." I did not write this paragraph. It is unencyclopedic to use the word "cult" with such negative connotations unless it is a very clear case such as the People's Temple. I personally believe that something is wrong with the CoG/The Family and I have too much personal experience to believe that new religious movements can not harm people. I guess Eileen Barker does not consider it a cult. Nor does David V. Barrett who wrote the "The New Believers" Have to check though. If you do not like the guideline then we can discuss it Wikipedia_talk:Words_to_avoid but do not break the guideline please. Andries 22:29, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia:Words to avoid are _guidelines_ NOT rules. It is fitting, in my opinion, to discuss the use of the word 'cult' for this group in this discussion. Please tell me where or how you find the word 'cult' (as it is generally defined) to be derogatory? 24.21.145.249 22:55, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  
  
• How much do you know about this group? The article on People's Temple has a nice little quote, "When you meet the friendliest people you have ever known, who introduce you to the most loving group of people you've ever encountered, and you find the leader to be the most inspired, caring, compassionate and understanding person you've ever met, and then you learn the cause of the group is something you never dared hope could be accomplished, and all of this sounds too good to be true-it probably is too good to be true! Don't give up your education, your hopes and ambitions to follow a rainbow." 24.21.145.249 02:55, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  
  
  • Alright. I had a look at NPOV and am now inclined to agree with Andries on the use of 'cult' in general usage. However, I still think it should be listed under Topics (in the COG article) as it is related and pertinent to this group. In the main article, I agree that it should be avoided as it is "unencyclopedic" (can't stand that word). Anywhere it is used in the article should have justification (i.e. "they have been called a cult by various..." and not "they are a cult"). 24.21.145.249 23:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    
    
  • THEY ARE A CULT! Avoiding the word 'cult' is just PC banter. You seem to be a part of the "make the world better through semantics" crowd. If we could do that, we'd just outlaw the words 'murder', 'rape', and 'theft' and be done with it. Call a spade a bloody shovel, and call a cult a cult!! ThePedanticPrick
    
    
    • PedanticPrick, the difference is that the words 'murder', 'rape' and 'theft' are clearly defined, unlike 'cult' that has a variety of meanings. Andries 20:13, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If I may enter the discussion here. I am a long time member of this group so I have a keen interest in what is said. To me it is not just a chance to write about something I am familiar with but what is written here will have in some way an effect on my life, and my wife and children, not to mention many others who I count as friends. I am not interested in trying to turn this into a pro article. This is an encyclopedia and I certainly agree with the NPOV policy that governs its contents and contributors. I am interested that is factual, but I am also concerned that the presentation of the facts doesn't have a negative bias. There are some things in this article that I think portray a negative bias. Such is the use of the word cult which comes laden with heavy negative overtones. Although it does have a simple sociological use, it is today used as pejorative when used to describe a religious group. It stigmatizes those it is applied to. I don't think it is fair to stigmatize anyone, let alone children, do you? Our members and their children have been heavily stigmatized in the past and it has resulted in many police raids and other intrusions by largely well-meaning authorities who were egged on by false accusations and negative stereotyping. All those intrusions were unjustified and once the cases came before the judiciary they were found to be so. However, once such investigations are put in motion they usually cannot be stopped until they have run their course and that results in a lot of trauma to all the parents and children involved, sometimes many months and even years of it. To call us a cult although justified in some ways, is unjustified because of the negative baggage this word carries. I say this because it is hoped that Wikipedia will become, or perhaps even has become, a premier source for balanced and unbiased information and thus could become a strong element in the forming of opinions regarding us or anyone else. So to some this article might be an academic exercise, or perhaps there are personal reasons to write about us and even portray us in a less than flattering light, but to me the stakes are much higher. It is my life and that of my wife and children. It goes beyond today's discussions. Nevertheless, I will be among the first to admit we are not an ordinary group. We have several doctrines that could certainly be termed unusual when applied to Christianity. However, we do have the right to hold those doctrines and in the enlightened climate that we like to think we all live in today, not to be ridiculed for them. I am writing this so you can see where I am coming from. I won't get into offering edits today. I just wanted to introduce myself. Thanks for reading.--Cognomen 18:22, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Thanks for introducing yourself, though, for me it was unnecessary -- I know where you are coming from. I also used to think that the Family was a positive new religous movement, and all the accusations were false. But I eventually faced reality. The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Ward found that children WERE abused in your cult. As a result, the leadership has admitted that Berg, through his writings, bears responsibility for this abuse. They have published no such admission to current members, which explains the state of denial that I am sorry to see you are in. The reality is that the "false accusations" and "negative stereotypes" are anything but. Trying to protect your wife and children from these by posting on WikiPedia is a fool's errand. The negative opinion and unwanted attention will never go away. You may have the right to hold whatever doctrines you wish, and to follow the teachings of a child-molester and his cohorts, but you DO NOT hold the right not to be ridiculed for your beliefs, not even in today's "enlightened climate." Free speech will constantly be working against you. You're right about one thing though: it IS your life and that of your family that are at stake. You can only protect them from negative opinion by removing your affiliation with the subject of that negative opinion -- the Family. You say you don't think it's fair to stigmatize anyone, but I don't think you mean that. If I commit a murder, you will stigmatize me as a murderer, and if I commit a sex-crime, you will be only too relieved to know that I am forced to register as a sex-offender so that everyone in my neighborhood can stigmatize me as well. Well, in the reall world, when a group has a history of child-abuse, other people will stigmatize its members for continuing to belong to that group despite its leadership's refusal to make amends. I would strongly suggest that you read the judgement of Lord Justice Ward in its entirety, so that, at the very least, you will admit that the notion of "all judges have found the Family innocent" is a false one. Good luck. ThePedanticPrick 22:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  
  
  • PendanticPrick: Well said. --EBW
    
    
• Cognomen: Would you mind pointing out where in the main article the word "cult" is used to describe this group? Thorwald 00:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  
  
  • Thorwald: True, it is gone now, but there is also the very real possibility that it will get reverted back in. I also find this question disingenuous since you continue to use it in two other articles that you started/contribute to when referring to my organization.--Cognomen 19:03, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    
    
    • Cognomen: Actually, the word 'cult' hasn't been used in the main article since August. It was removed from use after a good discussion with Andries (see above). Why can't you or Audiofree get it? --I am _not_ the only editor here. I had nothing to do with the use of 'cult' in the article about 'David Berg' (I assume you meant that one?) nor did I have anything to do with its use in the 'Jeremy Spencer' article (I also assume you meant that one; I am not even a "major contributor to this article). Until you know for sure, I would suggest you don't use offensive words like "disingenuous" to describe my posts. Thank you! On more thing, just because our material isn't completely in favour of your group does not make it completely negative or discriminatory. There is a middle ground, you understand? Thorwald 01:21, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      
      
      • Thorwald: Yes and I am happy to meet on the middle ground. I apologize if I have come to the wrong conclusions about you and your contributions. --Cognomen 02:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cognoman: It may be YOUR organization, and you are welcome to it. But many of us here know it all too well. Well enough to state that by all reasonable definitions of the word, it is indeed a cult, and an extremely abusive one at that. --EBW

Yes, the Ward judgment is difficult reading for me and yet I think the final lines of the judgment have to be looked at as what his conclusions were. And I quote: "Within the limits of tolerance which make ours a free society Family life no longer presents such risks of harm that I would still be justified in removing this child from this mother. By harm I mean sexual abuse or any form of ill treatment or any impairment of health or intellectual, emotional, social or behavioral development, in the color coding of harm.” For all he had to say this is the conclusion. The mother in question was awarded care and control of her child who still remains with her today. That was the conclusion of the matter. --Cognomen

That David Berg did bear responsibility for any harm that allegedly took place to children in our movement has not only been admitted to the court, the same document that was submitted to the court was circulated to all our membership. However, that admission also needs to be seen in the context of all the other police actions that took place against our group and the subsequent judicial and social service examinations of the children taken into care at those times. Not one of the hundreds of children examined was found to have been abused. These were investigations that were looking for evidence to back up and give credence to the raids that had been mounted. Their jobs were on the line and they were looking to save their necks. But no evidence, and I repeat, no evidence of abuse was found. We even asked the authorities in one country to investigate us rather than have our children face the prospect of being taken away in predawn raids as had happened in Argentina, Australia, France, and Spain. The number of our children interviewed and examined in many countries during that time period amounted to about 30% of the children of our members. Ask what school or other institution or organization could face such investigations in such numbers and not find some evidence of abuse? A third party confirmation of this is found here:
www.hrwf.net/html/france_2004.html#_Toc86142129. --Cognomen

The case presided over by Justice Ward was a wardship case. The rules of evidence were extremely loose. Hearsay and non-corroborated evidence was allowed without burden of proof. Witnesses with an axe to grind were allowed to say their piece without their evidence being tested. That evidence was included in the judgment. Justice Ward accepted what was said on face value and that was his prerogative. However, for all that testimony and for all the credence he apparently gave it, that still didn't persuade him that the Family was not a safe environment for the child in question to be raised in. Social service examinations were ordered on Family children in England during the case to see if there was proof of abuse. That proof was not found. Apparently, actual evidence, or perhaps rather the lack of it, and not testimony was what he must have based his final conclusion on. --Cognomen

Much is made of Justice Ward's judgment but what of the other judgments issued by courts around the world. Those judgments, which had to consider forensic evidence, concluded that there was no proof of abuse. One of the witnesses against us in Argentina who also apparently testified in England was found by the appeals court in Argentina to have lied. The children were returned to their parents, criminal charges were dropped, and in one instance very substantial compensation was actually paid to the children and kept in trust for them until they reached legal age. --Cognomen

So, you see, I do resent myself and particularly my children being stigmatized for crimes that we have not been involved in. This is my chosen vocation and that of my wife's and now also my adult son's. My daughter has yet to reach an age to make that decision. That is hers to choose when she does.--Cognomen 00:36, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• From EBW: Just a small insert here to correct a glaring misstatement at the beginning of that last paragraph. That should read "David Berg did bear responsability for all of the harm that DID take place" The word alleged suggests the possibility that none took place, and certainly you are not trying to deny that such harm did take place. It was fully documented in Justice Ward's report. If you like I can post the testimony of Mary Berg (Mene) to refresh your memory. And I could substantiate that with quotes from Ricky (Davidito). --EBW

We are over the 32KB limit on this discussion page. Please, everyone, make your point more concisely. Thorwald 00:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Moved some discussion to Talk:Children of God/Archive1. I've only moved discussions that appeared to be either dead or resolved. I'll leave it to the editors here to decide when the other disputes have been resolved and can be archived. AlistairMcMillan 03:44, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPOV). 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

The original text stated that the list in this section would include those programs or projects which were affiliated with the group. This list was compiled from sources and many of them state their affiliation with the group on their web sites or 990 Forms ([2] )-pages 19-23, [3] , [4] , [5] -pages 24-46, [6] -pages 18-28, and [7] -pages 19-31). The sources indicate that some of them are no longer active. The sources also suggest that this list is by no means complete. Thorwald

The pro-COG editors claim that, "those listed are not Family-sponsored. Some are operated by Family members in conjunction [with] non-Family members; some are personal initiatives, etc". Since this article is not attempting to list only those "Family-sponsored" initiatives, this argument is irrelevant. The purpose of this list is to provide information on all those programs and projects which are somehow affiliated with this group. For a much larger list (though not complete), please visit [8] . Thorwald

The pro-COG editors claim that "this continues to include a fictitious list of current Family leadership. If this encyclopedia deems itself a serious one, be accurate." Since this list was added by me, I assume by "fictitious" they mean to suggest that I invented these names. Thorwald

Allow me to explain where I got this list: This list originally contained 19 names. These names were taken from the sources. Of these 19, four were listed as "former leader". Of the remaining 15, eight are listed as associated with the Family Care Fundation (FCF-EIN: 33-0734917, [9] -page 4, [10] , and [11] . These names were taken directly from the FCF web site. The final seven were also taken from the sources and were said to be not only current leaders but leaders at a rather high level. Thorwald

I would ask the pro-COG editors to point out the specific names on this list that are fictitious and back up their claims with sources. If they can show that any of these names do not belong on this list, I will concede that I am wrong. The idea of this list is to show not only current leadership but also former leadership. Thorwald

• My sense is that any lists currently on there now are not presenting themselves as definitive, so they don't seem to be a problem...I filled in some gaps in what some people do gcom 04:44, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

I added a new section on finances. It's meant to be a starting point since I'm sure there's lots more interesting info. gcom 04:44, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Can someone doublecheck my notes on tithing because I'm not certain I broke it down right (memory fails) gcom 04:44, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

• Update: I actually think the last 1% of tithe goes to the Family Aid Fund (FAF), however I won't edit this again until I have it confirmed gcom 07:28, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Audiofree tried to delete these two sections, which was, IMHO, out of line. I have restored the two sections. See discussion at bottom of page. Samboy 02:02, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added a new section on secrecy since it's such a strong trait of the group, it's mean to be a stub to start people off. gcom 04:44, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

• I think the new additions to Recent Teachings, Secrecy, and Finances are great and make for interesting reading. The only problem I see is a half-paragraph at the end of "Secrecy" saying "people have conjectured that there is widespread corruption". This is double wuss-speak: not only did these unnamed "people" claim corruption, they weren't even bold enough to allege it, they merely "conjectured" it. It's also unclear what the term 'corruption' refers to in this context. Can we please clarify, or remove this bit? ThePedanticPrick 19:48, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  
  
  • Point taken, and removed for want of something better to clarify. It seems like there's something here to be said, but I don't have any clarity on what it should be so deleted for now. gcom 22:24, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
    
    
• I don't think this adds much, I think this info should be on an external site and maybe linked. This article is getting very long and hard to navigate. I think we should in general be finding ways to make it more concise and readable. I don’t think this topic would be of much interest to many as well as the other one you added. Not that it can’t be posted in some other form or linked, but I just think that adding large entries when there is conflict on entries that are already posted is not the best. Lets get the other entries worked out and finalized before adding more. Audiofree
  
  
  • It is my opinion that Audiofree is attempting to avoid addition of NPOV material that he/she deems too much information, there's no other practical purpose for deleting something as relevant to their history as their finances and the secrecy they shroud their leadership in. Let's just be clear about this: most members *never* saw a picture that was less thatn 20 years old of David Berg or Karen Zerby until the mid and late 90s respectively. If that isn't relevant then I don't know what is. I will abstain from reinstating my own material, and allow a third party (who is *not* a member of the group) to reinstate it in an attempt to validate my opinion on this issue. Thanks for any feedback. gcom 20:31, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
    
    
  • I will also comment to Audiofree that *this is an encyclopedia*. I'm not quite sure which part of that does not imply exhaustive material on a subject. This is not a place to summarise, it is a place to expand. Please who come to this article are obviously trying to find compiled information that is interesting and relevant on this group. If you wish to have NPOV material removed in the future I suggest you follow the advice on this page (and your own commitment) and discuss the removals first. gcom 20:37, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
    
    
  • I have restored the sections deleted. It is not OK to delete sections from a page without serious discussion. Samboy 02:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    
    
    • But you can just add? This was posted without any discussion at all.Audiofree
      
      
      • That's a fair question. It seems to me that adding NPOV material is fundamentally different than deleting NPOV detail, and so my answer would be yes it is okay to add NPOV material at will. I think that the action of deleting NPOV material in itself could be construed as a POV action or suppression of information at least in a case like this. There's no way I can prove intent though, so that's why I didn't revert my own changes back, since of course I have to ask myself what if my NPOV material was crap and truly of no value to the encyclopedia. I'm not an expert on this topic, so it would be interesting to know what the Wikipedia community says about this. gcom 17:00, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

The pro-COG editors argue that this section should include only "recent statistics". I assume by "recent" they mean within the last few years. The original purpose of this section was to give a history of their membership. That is from the beginning (c. 1970s) through to today. The statistics were, once again, taken from the sources. The sources generally agree on the early statistics. However, they all suggest that the recent statistics released by the group (via their website [12] ) are to be taken as suspect. It is only natural for an organization to portray strength in numbers and exaggerate them. Since I am unaware of a way to independently confirm the number of members in this group, I would suggest any statistics given by the group be taken as suspect and if they are to be included in this article that some sort of disclaimer be attached. Thorwald

• Merged the statistics from the IP, with the statistics that were posted already, don’t see why both can’t be there. And as far as finding exact numbers or independently confirming them. I would think that saying “Recent statistics by The Family International” would show that these are internal statistics claimed by the group. I don’t know how else you could come up with a current number, and having a recent count is relevant to the article. Audiofree

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 ([13] -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 [14] . For more information on Dr. Melton, please visit [15]  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
      

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

Flirty Fishing

I would like to suggest that we remove the pointless and incomplete quote from Gordon Melton describing how he thinks FFing started. It is even LESS honest and forthcoming than the official statment offered by the Family. Maybe taken in context, it actually goes somewhere (eg. "They began to pursue friendships, and saw that by having sex with these lonely people they could show them God's love") but as it stands, is a complete non-sequitir. It is jarring and confusing where it is, if it even belongs in the article at all (the credibilty of Mr Melton having already been cast into doubt) ThePedanticPrick 00:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Well, since no one seems to mind, I'll remove it. The Family's official statement is as pro-Family as it could be, so I'll leave that in, which I trust will satisfy the pro-COG editors.ThePedanticPrick 22:47, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  
  
  • Sorry, I do mind, I think it should stay, until a fair NPOV article that both sides are happy with is constructed. At that time I think all the pull quotes could be taken down. It seams that everyone is filling this article so full of POV content it's going to be non-readable in the near future in any point. So I say keep filling it up, till the POV editors can start working together. Audiofree
    
    
    • Audiofree, what do you think it adds? I think it's just bizarre and confusing. I think the Family's quote portrays FFing accurately and favorably. I'm also fairly certain that Melton is wrong. FFing started when Berg saw Maria flirting with Arthur at a nightclub, not "making friends" with lonely people at dance class. 24.46.206.220 22:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      
      
    • Audiofree: Melton isn't within $10,000 of being able to provide a NPOV. You can't make this thing more neutral by filling it with quotes from a guy who gets big checks directly from FCF. Indian Joe 00:44, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Audiofree: Perhaps you could start by fixing any POV material (and I mean fix, not remove paragraphs and lists). I'll also take your mention of "sides" here to mean people in The Family and people not in The Family.
      All: The whole section The Family of Love (1978-1987) seems to be broken. I think (1) the FFing pullquotes should be replaced with original encyclopedic material and (2) FFing needs to get its own section. I don't have time at this moment, but I'll take a hack at it later and see what everyone thinks (unless someone beats me to it). It's just bad form the way it is right now. --gcom 19:49, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

The pro-COG editors have made many changes to those paragraphs covering Flirty Fishing (FFing). By any definition of this practice (including actual statements from their leader and founder, David Berg) this amounted to little more that religious prostitution. From the group’s own writings the practice was stopped "because of the AIDS scare and because a female member of the group died of AIDS." The Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Ward describes this practice in his 1995 ruling
([16] (http://www.exfamily.org/art/misc/justward_master.shtml) under the section of "Flirty Fishing (FFing)"). Thorwald

• Prostitution is defined as the exchange of money for sex. Family members were not encouraged to exchange sex for money. It is also a crime in most countries. If you can't prove it by pointing to the document that says it then it is unprofessional and libelous to say this, the Ward judgment not withstanding. Even the documents he quotes from deny sex was exchanged for money and he doesn't cite FFing to be prostitution in his "Evidence on FFing". It is his opinion that it was, however it wasn't proven in law nor cited as fact. Family members were encouraged that they could have sex with others if a relationship went that far. Casual sex was a hallmark of the social climate in those days in many countries so if people were having casual sex for no better reason than personal gratification then why not have it for a better reason, that is to show someone that they were loved not only by us but by God too who created sex at least as much for our enjoyment as procreation. That was the rationale behind Flirty Fishing and that can be found in every document Berg wrote on it. The fact that long-term "fish" often gave gifts to the Homes also does not make FFing prostitution. David Berg was named as a defendant in a case in Italy and charged with incitement to prostitution among other things on the basis of his writings. The 3 judge panel ruled that Flirty Fishing was not prostitution and Berg and his co-defendants were exonerated on that and the other charges. A discussion on this case can be found here [[17] ] So if the only criminal case ever brought concerning FFing found it wasn't prostitution (and the judges there had all the same documents that Justice Ward had) then how can it be called that in an encyclopedia? --Cognomen 00:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  
  
  • Concerning CESNUR, It should not be considered a source for any valid information whatsoever. It is just a facade for cult apologists. It has a very dirty history. Information on that here. www.apologeticsindex.org/c10.html. --EBW
    
    
    • CESNUR is run by conservative Catholic, not someone who you would think of as defending the practices of a liberal group such as ours. Moreover, he is also a lawyer who deals in fact rather than hyperbole such as yours EBW. CESNUR also hosts an annual academic conference that is well-attended and respected by academics from around the world. I think its standing is unquestioned except by those whose activities it effectively exposes. Besides, the article linked to is discussing the results of a court case in Italy that ruled FFing was not prostitution. The ideology behind CESNUR is not in question here.--Cognomen 21:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Thorwald Why did you revert my last edits? I have scrupulously stuck to the middle ground you touted that you wanted to meet on. --Cognomen 18:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  
  
  • Cognomen: Sorry. I was trying to revert to the version before the FCF-user's edits and yours was in the middle. I would, however, like to discuss your edits and the description of FFing a bit more before committing to your changes. Prostitution, in my mind, is not simply the exchange of sex for money; it is the exchange of sex for anything other than just reciprocal sex. This may be a strange idea and, in fact, I need to ponder it a bit more. However, the idea behind "religious prostitution" seems to be to draw people to the "temple" . . . and to get some money out of them. If you are trying to tell me that Berg never suggested that these women get some money out of their "kings", than you and I are not reading the same sources. Thorwald 18:52, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    
    
    • Thorwald I am happy to talk this out with you. Having lived through that period in The Family in several countries I think I can bring a first hand perspective of what happened aside from reference to printed sources. Merry Christmas!--Cognomen 19:17, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• From EBW: I'd like to stick this in here. I also lived through that period in the family. In late 1978 Berg wrote a letter called "Make it Pay" in which he ordered the family women to demand (not request) some sort of financial aid in return for sex. At that time there was relative liberty due to the RNR and people were still free to follow their own personal leadings. However later the family became much more tyrannical. And from 1984 to 1990 there was certainly no leeway for personal leadings on the matter. FFing was a support ministry. It was expected to bring in money. --EBW
  
  
  • A significant number of homes were supported financially by FFer's "fish", this is a hallmark of the late 70s and 80s in the family, with many very wealthy homes where the best FFers lived. Even right up until the late 90s (and probably continuing in very rare circumstances -- as in the Narita's in Japan, and that Indian fellow, who owns some textile business, I can't remember his names, are still being FF'd and are still supporting the Family homes and WS (although I think that the N's income may have tapered off). The fact is FFing was a huge financial supporter at all levels of The Family. gcom 07:21, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC)
    
    
    • It seems you have quite an insider knowledge on this. If that is the case you would also know that even if the "fish" did give financially or materially to the Homes that it still would have to be seriously stretched to equal prostitution. If that was the case any woman who was supported by her lover would have to be classed as a prostitute. The people you refer to above are members of the Family and have been for 10-20 years, so that would seem to negate your comment that they are still being FF'd. And huge would be quite a stretch of the immagination as far as support is concerned. If you have lived in any of our Homes, as you seem to have, then you would know that large financial reserves or income are not hallmarks of our organization. We run our missions on a shoestring.--Cognomen 19:52, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      
      
      • Cognomen: (1) I didn't mention financial reserves, I said "wealthy homes", and yes, I realize it's all relative, but these were truly wealthy homes supporty by escorting and FFing. (2) FFing was done for *both* support and for witnessing, and escorting is in the Seven Supporters booklet published by the family as a fundraising method, as evidenced by the title of the booklet. (3) "God's Whores", "Heaven's Harlots", etc. These are all easily found in old FFing pubs with a light perusal. Bottom line for me is I don't see why you seem to want to cover up this history. It's interesting, it's relevant, and it happened. I honestly think that it makes The Family seem more shifty if these things are whitewashed. I think the goal here for most of us here is an NPOV article that describes the truthful history of The Family, of which FFing and Escorting are a part. (BTW, personally I don't care one way or another whether the word prostitute is used, so I'm not attempting to argue for that point, but I am attempting to argue for the facts that I know, so if someone tries to say that some FFing was not done for support I'm just going to have to call them on that, and I'm suprised that any Family member can rationally dispute that.) (4) Those "members" are completely honorary. I'm not questioning their desire to serve god or anything, but the fact is they did not have to follow the same Family rules, and they were essentially suppporting large amounts of The Family's work. I'm actually not certain that Mr. Narita was originally FF'd though, so I take that back subject to confirmation, but I think the point stands. gcom 21:52, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
        
        
      • Gcom: I can agree that FFing ended up being a supporter. That was not its original intention, though, and I think you would agree with me on that. What I don't like seeing a trigger words like "prostitute" which brings up what I believe is a distorted picture of what was happening in the mind of a casual reader. It is an interesting part of Family history and I don't want to just ignore it. What I do want is for it to be presented in an NPOV way. I put in the sentence about Family women working for escort agencies then hyperlinked it to the entry on escort agencies so people can make up their own mind on the issue. I think the way it was handled at the beginning was that the original edit was written to display the women's actions in a negative light and completely ignored what I believe was the altrusitic reasons they did it in the first place. And as for the three people mentioned, they all regard themselves as Family members not just honorary members. Heaven's Harlots was a book written by an exmember and is not a Family publication. --Cognomen 22:51, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        
        
        • From EBW: Not such a stretch as you claim. Fish were expected to give. And it was not just whatever they wanted to give. In one home where I was, the leadership more or less blackmailed a particular "fish". He owned a restaurant in Japan. In fact it was me who first met him and initially he was just a friend who came over a few times. But then the shepherdess of the home decided to "FF" him. Thereafter, whenever the home finances were low, she would show up unexpected at his restaurant for sex and to get another donation. After I left the family I spoke with him and he said that he had been terrified that his wife would find out. He never wanted to have such a relationship at all. She the shepherdess) would show up in front of employees and literally drag him into a backroom for "business". Making a scene would have been even a bigger scandal than just submitting. --EBW

Paragraphs on escort agencies should not have been deleted because there were many people that I know first hand worked with escort agencies and were encouraged to when I was in Europe in the "Family of Love". Not all female members went with escort agencies but a number of them did. Berg wrote in a letter that as long as the women were having sex to reach people they might as well be making money doing it. Berg also wrote letters including one called "God's Whores". How much more straightforward does one need to be to sStatistics and daily diaries were kept including number of people f*d, how, what they were by profession etc(demographics) and the most personal basic information was to be recorded in 15 minute increments by the group member. There are too many exers that recall this to make a case for libel against us. I would be interested in seeing the ex "Family of Love" and current whatever-they-call-themselves leadership try and make a case of it. There are many who would love to see current top leadership in orange jumpsuits with roommates bigger and butcher than they are. --author_unknown

• I have deleted these two paragraphs about escort agencies and family separations as they are not NPOV in any sense of the word. In what cities and who opened escort agencies. And do the math! What women could FF several hundred men a month? Unless it just goes to show that FFing did not involve sex in the vast majority of cases. The last sentence then becomes meaningless. And what data is presented to show that it became the rule for couples to separate because of FFing or that it devastated the children of the group. All the psychological profiles performed on the children in our group show that they are well adjusted or better than societal norms. So unless you can provide empirical data on this then this has no place in an encycopedia. While there was a letter by the name of God's Whores it was named that for shock value. The letter itself did not live up to the title. The diaries referred to were I believe the One Heart Diaries which were modeled on the well-known 7 Star Diary. There purpose was to record work and other activities and the day was divided in 30 minute segments, from what I can remember, and most of us didn't keep them anyway. I have also deleted the quotes from "Many former Family members" because unless they were all reciting it at the same time it does not make sense. Also, it is pure polemic that doesn't fit the facts. Who are these anonymous former members and what sources are cited aside from the Ward Judgment? --Cognomen 00:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  
  
  • I agree with Cognomen here, the Family really didn't run escort agencies in any sense that is relevant to this article. If it happened (which it quite possibly did, I seem to recall something) it was pretty uncommon and unusual and really not a standard or promoted practice of any kind. They just worked for the agencies in some larger cities, particularly in Asia. I also agree that the original version describing escort work just wasn't NPOV enough, so in the absence of a better edit it seems better to put on ice until someone fixes it. gcom 21:52, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
    
    
  • COGNOMAN, You have a lot of nerve declaring what does and does not belong in an encyclopedia. One thing that does belong is the truth. FF report forms were certainly not the same thing as Open Heart Diaries. They were detailed information sheets about the men FFed. The title of the Mo letter God's Whore's was not for shock value and it certainly would not have shocked members at that time that's for sure. Not with all the graphic sex pictures on the cover of nearly all the letters at that time. As for the cities where the family either ran or worked for escort agencies, the list would be in the hundreds. I have posted some that I saw firsthand and I know there were many many more. If you were in the Family at all at that time you know that this is true. So why pretend otherwise. As for what is NPOV. I don't think lies fit the criteria. As for the psychological profiles you mention, why not ask the children who grew up in the family what they think about that subject. Better yet I'll ask them for you and post a link to their replies. --EBW
    
    
  • I agree with you, to an extent. I have a tendency to doubt that the Family actually opened their own escort services (it would be hard to keep that selah), but I am fairly certain that many of them worked as escort girls. Acronyms like ESing don't just appear out of thin air now, do they? I also find the "several hundred" figure a little extreme -- did they mean "per year"?. And while it was quite common for parents to separate, I think it may be pushing it to say that it was the rule, rather than the exception. But I think it bears mentioning that Berg once said "God is in the business of breaking up marriages and families!" (sorry, I don't have an exact quote, but you've unwittingly challenged your opponents to find it and cite it, and I'm sure someone will shortly). I also think it was rather sloppy to post a two-paragraph quote without citing the source. Whoever posted that needs to do their homework better. By the same token, I'd like to suggest that you produce a copy of this Mo-letter "God's Whores" that you say is so innocuous and innocent. I'm betting you won't be able to, as it's been burned. Funny things do happen! ThePedanticPrick 08:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    
    
    • PedanticPrick: Funny you should use such familyism (Funny things do happen!) Wonder where you picked that up ;) gcom 21:52, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)
      
      
    • Yes funny things do happen. I have added a sentence in the article to satisfy the escort service question. However, I think things have taken on a very nasty tone and I apologize if I have contributed to that. Nevertheless, I am concerned that what is written is accurate and not turned into hyperbole. The paragraphs I deleted were full of supposition and not worthy of an academic work such as this. As for the serveral hundred loved per month figure the EBW reiterates below, there are not enough hours in the day for this to be a real stat.--Cognomen 17:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      
      
      • From EBW to COGnoman: I seriously doubt if your edit will "satisfy" the escort service question. I have asked well known top veteran of ESing to write a brief commentary concerning her experience. I will try to condense it to a short factual paragraph and insert it into the article. I'll post her entire commentary here. You'll like it I'm sure. --EBW
        
        
      • EBW has changed her figure to 200+ per month. There are enough hours in the day to see 6-7 clients. I agree, however, that this should be left out, unless it can be verified. ThePedanticPrick 04:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        
        
        • From EBW: Not a change just a clarification. As I remember the highest figure I ever saw was about 250. I might specify that a few family women were actually working in massage parlors or as exotic dancers in clubs. These had "stats" higher than those working for escort agencies. --EBW
          
          
    • I have deleted "as a way to meet wealthy businessmen." EBW from her post below, since she has seen all this first hand can probably attest you don't know who you will meet. And I have deleted the nasty little inserted paragraph in the previous section about FFing. We are having an open debate here about this subject so I think if someone wants to add something that they should at least explain why.--Cognomen 00:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      
      
      • Escort services aren't cheap, and they are most commonly frequented by lonely businessman (would you prefer this term?). I think we might have to compromise here. I don't doubt that FFing had noble goals (albeit unusual methods) in mind, but in practice, things got out of hand, and the evidence is clearly there that it began to closely resemble prostitution. Can you agree to this? ThePedanticPrick 04:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        
        
        • Okay, I can agree to lonely businessmen. Thank you for your conciliatory approach here. I now have it from 4 different sources that EBW's claims to NPOV below are far from unbiased. The persecution in Indonesia was due to a backlash from radical Muslims who objected to the the group's Christian witnessing, especially the conversion of the daughter of a prominent Muslim family who moved into a Family Home. Apparently some Christian churches were also happy to get in on the act. The other claim that people in our group ran escort agencies in Indonesia and Singagpore is also stretching the fact. We FF'd in both countries and some girls worked with escort agencies but we did not run them. Perhaps Cassandra who posted a message on my user page might want to corroberate this information. Cognomen 00:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          
          
          • Okay bear with me. When I answered your question on your user page I was thinking of how I first became involved in the Escort Agencies, I wasn't thinking of my overall experience. So I thought you were asking if I was the one that originally started the flow to Escort work by starting my own agency. That's why I answered I did not start one. In Sydney I did start one for a limited time with limited success, as it was too much bother and little returns. (wasn't bearing enough "fruit".) But this was much later after I had been Escorting for quite a while. In Indonesia it was handled differently, through word of mouth, but clearly although I did not think of it at the time, I was running an agency of sorts, as when I would get a call, quite often I would arrange another sister to come. This was always for cash. In Singapore the same thing happened. (although we we worked with agencies there too) From there I know other sisters made their own similar contacts and as EBW says government officials, rich business men were the targets. --Cassandra

• From EBW: Concerning the Family opening it's own escort agencies. I know this to be true in many cities. In Austin Texas the Family actually ran 3 escort agencies simultaneously from 1979 through 1983 (and perhaps even later). These agencies were in continual contact with each other and the same women might be paged from all three agencies. In Houston Texas there was also a family-run agency during this same time span. In Indonesia from the fall of 1983 until the spring of 1984, I personally saw Family run-agencies in Jakarta, Surabaya, Bandung, and Yogyakarta. I know they also existed in many other cities. There was also a Family agency in Singapore. The so-called "persecution" in Indonesia in the spring of 1984 was largely a govenment reaction to this widespread prostitution activity throughout the country which targeted the rich and particularly government personnel. All of the above were agencies that I personally knew to exist and saw in operation. I know that the same thing was going on all over the world. Such escort work was considered to be FFing and the clients were counted in monthly statistics as "Fish Loved". It was through such escort work that some FFers reported several hundred "Fish Loved" per month. These statistics were published worldwide in Family publications. Of course a woman who "loved" 200 or more men in a month was not spending too much time witnessing about Jesus. But such "scores" did exist and they were praised as being real testimonies of the sacrificial love of Christ. I can testify that giving was not optional in such escort agencies. The client paid a set fee for the woman's time. What they did during that time was their own business but was definitely on a pay for play basis. These are facts. And they are totally NPOV. --EBW
  • I would suggest it is because it is the reality of the situation of the time. I myself have long ago given up those rose colored glasses that tried to make our prostitution of the time look as if it was sweet and wholesome as apple pie. We were reduced to pieces of meat and it's insulting to see you try and whitewash the situation by trying to make it sound otherwise. --Cassandra

Indian Joe: We have reached the limit of discussion on this page if we are to continue using it then it seems we are going to need to delete something. Apparently our debate below is archived now if we need to refer to it so we may have to let this go. --Cognomen 17:33, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The definition of Prostitute is clear. Websters says: "One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.". This is what the letters told women in The Family to go out and do. This is what Women in The Family went out and did. People become prostitutes for all kinds of reasons. Some people do it simply to survive. Regardless, accepting payments for sex acts is prostitution. I don't think one can expect society to change the definition of the worlds oldest profession just to help current members feel better about what the group did in the past. FYI, I am not a current or former member, so if you want a NPOV, here it is. Indian Joe 23:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  
  
  • Indian Joe, can you quote me which letter told women in the Family to go out and "solicit and accept payment for sex acts"? --Cognomen 00:33, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    
    
    • Cognomen: I'll start with this one:

      MAKE IT PAY! --By Father David March 13, 1978 MO DO No.684 Copyright © by The Family of Love, April 1978, CP 748, 00100 Roma, Italia.
      
      3. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SLICE THE FFing, BECAUSE IF YOU DO IT RIGHT IT WON'T COST YOU A DIME! It's ridiculous that our men are still going out with the girls and still paying the bills! No wonder you can't afford FFing!
      4. IF IT'S DONE THE RIGHT WAY IT WILL PAY FOR ITSELF. It not only would be paying for itself, but it ought to be generating income for the whole work.
      5. WE OUGHT TO TAKE THE GIRLS OFF THE FF LINE IF THEY CAN'T EVEN MAKE IT PAY for itself! I'm sure the guys would help.
      6. MOST OF THE GUYS OFFER, "CAN I GIVE YOU ANYTHING? Is there anything you need? I'd like to help you somehow." Now what do they say to those guys?
      7. "OH NO, WE'RE FINE. NO, WE DON'T ACCEPT MONEY, blah, blah." When don't we accept money?! We may not accept money for sexual service or get paid on the spot, but we'll sure accept the money if they want to give it to us!
      8. "WELL, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A DONATION TO OUR HOME OR BUY THE CHILDREN SOME FOOD or get us this piece of furniture, that'd be wonderful! There's a nice bed here in your hotel room, but I don't have one at home. How would you like to buy me a bed?" (Maria: I think they're too proud.) Absolutely!
      9. IF YOU'RE TO BE GOD'S WHORE YOU CAN'T HAVE MUCH PRIDE! Let me tell you, I never went to a whore yet that hesitated to ask for the money in advance. She didn't take off a stitch of clothes until you handed it over!
      10. IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO LET THESE GUYS KNOW THAT YOU NEED MONEY you ought to get out of the FFing business! It's nice to win souls, but it's got to pay for itself.
      11. MY LORD, YOU'RE PROVIDING ENOUGH FF SERVICE AND GETTING LAID, IT'S ABOUT TIME YOU GOT PAID! You brag about the great FFing you're doing, but if it's running up bills that you can't pay, it's not so great!
      12. YOU SAY IT'S WINNING GREAT FRIENDS, BUT IF IT'S NOT PAYING THE BILLS then there is something wrong with their friendship!--Especially when you let them know that you need it.
      13. IF YOUR AREA CAN'T AFFORD TO SUPPORT YOU, YOU'LL HAVE TO MOVE but I know it can. There is no reason why most countries can't support a few little Homes. There's just no excuse! "
      
      Indian Joe 04:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

      • Indian Joe: Nice try. Perhaps we should put in the previous paragraphs so you see it in context. Something which you neglected to do on purpose no doubt.--Cognomen 06:59, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        
        
        • Cognomen:I could have included the entire text of the letter, but you asked for specifics. I appreciate what you added, but I fail to see that it changes the context of the letter. "Make it Pay" was clearly about telling members to exchange money for sex, which is prosititution.Indian Joe 16:44, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          
          
          • Indian Joe: Make It Pay was not about exchanging sex for money. In fact, I find your appreciation quite phony and you know it. You deliberately left out the paragraph that said "we don't accept money for sexual services" which was the core of your accusation. To leave off the most relevant part of the documentary evidence I think is disgraceful and certainly leaves your claim to be NPOV in shreds. Oh and I read the rest of the letter too and I don't seem to find anything more about FFing in it, do you? --Cognomen 17:30, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
            
            
            • Cognomen: You are correct that Make it Pay was not all about exchanging sex for money; it was only 1/2 about exchanging sex for money. The other 1/2 is about financially exploiting the group's children for money. I would suggest to that you not ask that any further excerpts from this letter be postedas I am not sure at the moment which half is the most embarrasing for the group. --Dret 3 Jan 2005
              
              
            • Cognomen: I'm sorry if my answer to your question has left you upset. You asked me to quote something specific, and I did. The very sentence that you partially quote contradicts itself: "7. "OH NO, WE'RE FINE. NO, WE DON'T ACCEPT MONEY, blah, blah." When don't we accept money?! We may not accept money for sexual service or get paid on the spot, but we'll sure accept the money if they want to give it to us!". It says "we may not accept money for sexual service", then it turns around and says, "we'll sure accept the money if they want to give it to us!". Then it goes on to encourage members to trade sex for money. It is clear, and if you don't see it it is not a good reason to attempt to attack my credibility. Hundreds if not thousands of members at the time understood it to mean the same thing that I do. Indian Joe
              
              
              • Indian Joe: The Family accepts donations. That is how we finance ourselves. If someone wanted to give a donation that is fine. However, your definition quoted from Websters of "soliciting and accepting money for sexual acts" that you said was in the letters was certainly not there in this quote. Also, since you were never in the Family how do you know what "hundreds if not thousands of members at the time understood it to mean"? Have you asked hundreds if not thousands what they took it to mean? I think to retain any credibility you need to retract your statement en toto. --Cognomen 00:10, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                
                
                • Cogman that is nothing but double speak. In the Family, if a Fish wasn't giving money, they were dumped. I can not think of even one example where a woman was allowed to have sexual relations with a "fish" and it did not pay in either money, material goods or protection. It was definitely prostitution and it's just belittling to hear you try and say it wasn't. Indian Joe is right on target. --Cassandra
                  
                  
                • Cognomen: I refuse to retract my statement at this time. There is overwhelming evidence both written and historical in nature that support it. My opinions are formed by over 25 years of regular interaction with current and former members of The Family. I have access to a fair number of original 70's era Mo Letters, that I have read. By the way, accepting donations in return for sex is prostitution. Indian Joe 01:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
                  
                  
• Well, I am baffled! Here is someone who quotes from Websters, then claims that the letters said to do the same, cannot produce the proof, but includes an excerpt from a letter to back his claims but conveniently leaves out the paragraph that says the exact opposite, was never in the Family but says he knows how hundreds or even thousands of former member thought over a space of 25 years or more in the past. Now he says he has overwhelming evidence both written and historical as though by saying that that is enough to justify his claims and gives him the right to call people names. And I get accused of double speak. And Cassandra, I knew plenty of fish who didn't have to support the Homes. Perhaps dumping them if they didn't is the way you treated yours. Frankly, I thought to hear better from you as those I talked to said you were a loving and thoughtful woman. Anyway, it seems that your minds are made up so I guess I will stop confusing you with the facts. --Cognomen 04:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  
  
  • Cognomen: I am a thoughtful and loving woman. I am just not a liar. Also you forgot to mention that the persecution in Indonesia the Moslem girl that was "converted" was fished and consequently was pregnant. Much to the horror of her Family (she had been a virgin). I don't know why you don't like to deal with facts. Of course this was not the only reason for the Family being threatened by the government there. But it was the only reason you mention. --Cassandra
    
    
  • Cognomen: I didn't call anyone names. Prostitute is the polite term for someone who trades on sex. What baffles me is how a group that so said to its members "IF YOU'RE TO BE GOD'S WHORE YOU CAN'T HAVE MUCH PRIDE!", is now too proud to admit that they encouraged their members to become prostitutes. You might be in over your head on this thing. Maybe someone should give Grant or Claire Borowick or one of the PR Spin Docotors a call and tell them to come in here and try to explain this thing away. I'm sure you are a very nice person, and very dedicated to your cause. I am sorry that this has been so upsetting for you right around the holidays and all. Indian Joe 05:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    
    
    • Indian Joe: That's nice of you to say I am nice and dedicated. However, I have proven my point but you have not proven yours. Realizing this page is already too full and the administrators are going to want to archive it, I simply declared victory in the debate and left it at that.--Cognomen 07:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      
      
      • Cognomen, any high-school argumentation student knows that you can't "declare victory" in a debate any more than you can prove your innocence by having your champion defeat your accuser in a jousting match. I don't know what century you live in where a spade is called a trowel and a prostitute is called a missionary, but the rest of us live in the real world and see right through you. Your declaration of victory is as meaningless as if Kerry had declared victory in the election, because everyone but you knows you are wrong. I wonder if you find as much time to feed, clothe, and educate your children as you do to quibble semantics on the Internet. Wake up!! ThePedanticPrick 19:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        
        
      • Cognomen: Your declaration of victory is certainly unilateral in nature. I definitely have not surrendered, or conceded my point that prostitution existed in The Family, on a wide scale and was encouraged and demanded by top leadership who profited from these acts. Indian Joe 14:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        
        
        • Indian Joe': Sorry you had to deal with all that. It's clear that the literature posted made your point, Cassie backed your point, etc.
          
          Cognomen, not sure why you're so concerned. Your first error is your constant implication or statement that prostitute is a slur, which it clearly is not. Your second is all the doublespeak surrounding the "we take donations but don't get paid" arguments. The third significant one to me because it shows your bunker mentality is that FF'd "members" are anything more than sincere yet honorary family members who are allowed to not followed normal family rules and restrictions. I'll return to my original point: The Family used sex for witnessing and for support, there are thousands of pages dedicated to this in publications, you either are proud of your history, or you're in lockdown mode disputing technicalities. If the dictionary says prostitution is supporting yourself (through donations or otherwise), then just deal with that. We all know that's what happened, and we can continue to drag out publications and personal stories to show it. I'd suggest you just let it drop. The more you fight it the worse The Family looks cause you can't even stand up for what everyone knows is true. I can speak truthfully that despite my general disregard for all things fundamentalist, calling some FFing prostitution is not a slur on my part, it's a statement of fact, and it seems that unlike you, have not need or desire to make a woman who has in the past prostituted herself feel that she needs be revisionist about history.
          
          All: It seems there is plenty of consensus on this issue and only one dispute, so I suggest we move on for now and drop the stupid argument and just continue trying to make this a great NPOV section of the article. It's fascinating history and there's a lot more that could be said to make it even more interesting and to show the nature of this fairly unusual practice and it's social impacts on Family society and effectiveness (or lack of as the case may or may not be) as a witnessing device.
          
          Cognomen: Why don't you help more fill in facts rather than attempt to revise them? gcom 17:46, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
          
          
        • Oh come on! Declared victory was tongue in cheek. I understood we were out of space on the page and had to terminate the debate. But what all this does show me, unfortunately, is everyone else is working from the same agenda, and it really isn't NPOV. I had hoped for better things. I maintain my belief that FFing did not equal prostitution (ESing could be another matter) and no matter how hard you try you are not going to get a "great NPOV section" working from that supposition.--Cognomen 00:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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 ([18] (http://www.exfamily.org/art/misc/justward_master.shtml) 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)
      
      
    • 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. --EBW
      
      
    • 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. --EBW
      
      
    • 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
      
      
    • 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! --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. author??
    
    
    • 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)
      
      
      • Indian Joe: Thanks for that. After reviewing the Fair Use article, I have to agree with Indian Joe that no copyright infringement is occurring here and I, therefore, support the re-insertion of this quote. Thorwald 02:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The pro-COG editors have tried to claim that the group has never been successfully charged with anything. Various sources have stated that this is anything but the case. In fact, a reading of the ruling by Justice Ward would appear to be more of a condemnation of their past than a vindication [19] (http://www.exfamily.org/art/misc/justward_master.shtml). Thorwald

• Can you please provide the links to the Court cases you list? You say "(see links below)" but I can only find links to UK, Argentina, and France. Can you add the links to Brazil, Italy, Japan, Norway, Peru, Spain, Sweden, USA, and Venezuela? --Audiofree
  
  
  • Audiofree (please sign your posts): Firstly, I assume you meant me here. Secondly, I wasn't the one who added this list. Finally, you can find this list from the group's official web site: http://www.thefamily.org/dossier/. Of course, I shouldn't need to suggest that any information about the outcomes of these court cases described by them would necessarily be biased. PS: A similar list can be found at: http://www.cesnur.org/testi/TheFamily/se_thefamily.htm (note: this site has Dr. J. Gordon Melton as one of its primary editors). Thorwald 02:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    
    
• On June 21, 1979 William T. Gillie, a Judge in Franklin County, Ohio awarded $1,000,000.00 to a plantiff against the THE CHILDREN OF GOD, DAVID BRANDT, AKA DAVID BERG, AKA MOSES DAVID, et al. A copy of the judgement is available here:
  [20]  (http://www.exfamily.org/cgi-bin/gf.pl?fmt=dyn&t=articles&m=1&s=6&r=art/misc/court_of_common_pleas.shtml).
  Indian Joe 18:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A stub intended for discussion on the title. Thorwald 18:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'm wondering about the general make up of this entry, listing all of this in an encyclopedia seams a bit odd, I’ve gone through quite a few other religious groups in this wiki and have not found many of these long lists. It would seam like if this info was somewhere and linked, that would be one thing, but to list all these names? Where does it stop? We may end up with hundreds of names if we keep going down this line. Audiofree
  
  
  • (Note from Gcom, I'm sorry I broke the paragraph above, which is from Audiofree, and below this paragraph and the next which are mine, it makes it look like the above note was from me but it was from him/her) I also have questions in particular when it comes to people who are not particularly interesting who are no longer affiliated with the group. However, I believe that current leadership of The Family is interesting, in particular when their role can be expanded upon. A simple listing of "famous" family members is pretty useless, but the people who guide and run The Family and their role does seem interesting and relevant. gcom 20:48, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
    
    
  • I would also conjecture that some listings of names, unless they are relevant in some way to general interest in the group, such as current leadership, or past leadership that has some particularly interesting role, are simply a vindictive backlash due to the group's own secrecy and lack of transparency, which perhaps places it subtly in the POV camp, so I would suggest a purging by a non-member who can perhaps parse the interesting and relevant from the irrelevant. I'd rather not take this role. gcom 20:48, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
    
    
• I would like to see this removed down to a link to an external website where this info can be listed. I also find the same true of the two new entries by Gcom, listing Finances and such, again I think this wiki entry should be dedicated to the history of the COG and present beliefs and such, not a listing of every internal working of the group which would be of no interest to most that read this article, again I think the info could easily be gone into in depth on an external website, with a single link from here. Audiofree
  
  
  • Audiofree: How do you know Wikipedians would find information on the group's current and former leadership to be "of no interest"? As a Wikipedian myself, I find this information especially interesting. While reading through sources (i.e. Justice Ward's ruling), I found it difficult to keep track of all the names thrown about. As part of this group's history and current make-up, I find these names essential to understanding this group and following all of the who-said-what/who-did-what dialogue. This is an encyclopedic article and it is meant to be exhaustive on the subject. Thorwald 02:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Audiofree: About the names in the Leadership section vs. the names in the References: There are various formatting standards and none are required. However, the important thing is to be consistent with the citation formats. It is common to write names as, "Doe J and Brown D" where the first name can be easily obtained from the reference cited. This is not true, however, with the names of Leadership in this group as no reference is listed and their first names are, thereby, not easily obtained. Do you understand the difference? It was for the above reasons that I applied a standard and consistent format to the names in the References section but not in the Leadership section. I am still in favour of reverting the names in the References section to how I formatted them (i.e. "Doe J and Brown D") but not in the Leadership section. I will, however, wait for discussion on this before reverting. Thorwald 20:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Thorwald: Try googling for “Melton GJ” vs “Melton Gordon” I think full names should stay.Audiofree
  
  
  • Audiofree: True. However, you don't have to Google for anything; the full reference is listed there. All a user/reader has to do is either click on the link(s) provided or go to the source. My vote is still for my format. However this is resolved, as long as we are consistent within the References section it is fine with me. Thorwald 23:19, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Agreed Audiofree

• It is interesting to note that a 'whois' on this user's IP address (216.70.243.114) yields the following:

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

( note: bold added by me). Thorwald 04:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• 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)