|
In Reply to: Re: jimmy boy posted by Monger on August 26, 2005 at 01:32:17:
I take what you're saying about the sexual abuse being mostly or all in the past, but what I'd meant to explain but didn't is that people like Chancellor see themselves in the role of key players who analyze the Family & then give it, in effect, a stamp of approval. Believing that the Family has matured as a movement, turned from their evil ways, Chancellor & others like him are eager to grease the tracks for the Family to be accepted as a once-aberrent NRM, but now maturing & able to be accepted into mainstream society. If that's not an entirely accurate view, it's my impression. What do you think?
But the whole issue is that tho most if not all of the sexual abuse is past, the control is still there & the sexual abuse never repented of, but in fact defended. The Loving Jesus Rev. came out after the Charter, after the abuses stopped. The Summit Jewels with Maria's apallingly candid statments came out after the sexual abuse stopped. They only stopped out of expediency. Weird things could begin happening tomorrow if they felt they could just get away with it.
