Talk:The Family International/Archive 1

Is it a cult or not?
I don't believe that "The Family International" formerly known as "The Family", "Family of Love", Children of God and many front names internationally, should be called a "cult" and here is why. I love "cult" classic movies and sometimes when one refers to a "cult" following it is nothing more than a fan club. Now if it were called a "Highly Destructive Cult" or something more specific I could heartily agree having been exploited in the group in my youth and seen it leading towards gross abuse and negligence of second generation children. I don't think movie stars or famous people would throw their support behind a group that clearly has advocated pedophilia right from the top (David Brandt Berg) or things like the "LJR" instituted under Zerby and co. Neither do I put any stock in hired guns or "experts" that defend "The Family" or whatever they may be calling themselves at any given time because in any profession there are people that would defend Jeffrey Dahmer or NAMBLA followers if paid enough or given enough favors or noteriety. So I would call it an "HDC" and that is MILD. --author_unknown

Please note that in Wikipedia, the word cult is to be avoided. If you think that something is wrong with the Family then state why. Andries 21:49, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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 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 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%3AWords_to_avoid but do not break the guideline please. Andries 22:29, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The 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
 * PendanticPrick: Very well said indeed. A cult is a cult, and of course a member of a cult will generally believe they arent a part of one.. Such is life. Webbj 12:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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.&#8221; 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
 * To Cognomen: I'm not sure what version of Lord Justice Ward's judgment you are pulling this quote from. It is in none of the copies I have found. Please state your source. What I find the Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Ward actually saying in his conclusion is in complete contradiction to what you claim he said. His exact words were: "My judgment is that the risks of harm as matters presently stand are significant enough to dictate in his interests that he be removed from his mother. [...] I intend, therefore, and subject to argument from Counsel, to impose a Stay upon this Order so that NT and those who are close to her in The Family may have some short period of reflection. I would extend that Stay if I were given certain assurances." (http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/~tttbbs/EPN-1/Articles/Articles-COGx/wrdjdg24.html) It was only after the Family's leadership begrudgingly made the changes requested by Lord Justice Ward that he extended his Stay of the verdict. As to the 'final lines' of the judgement, it is quite clear what his conclusion was: "If NT and the Family takes this to heart and do successfully meet the demands I have placed upon them, then it should not require a direction from the court for NT humbly to acknowledge, "Mother, you were right!" If she can do that then truly S's best interests will have been served." WalkerJ 06:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 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
 * To Cognomen:As you'll recall, the publication you mention places no blame on the persons (Maria, Peter and WS) who saw fit to publish for the Family Berg's questionable doctrines as well as the Davidito Book, the FSM Encyclodepia, and many other publications containing blatant references to child/adult sexual relationships. Had these remained unpublished, Maria and Peter would be fully justified in placing the blame solely on Berg. Please also recall, Cognomen, that many of the children who underwent the examinations by social services were far too young to have been around when the abuse that took place in The Family was at its height. There is at least one case that I am well familar with (although I have been told it is not a unique one) in which a Family girl, a young teenager at the time, who was abducted in the one of the raids on Family Homes did not undergo a physical examination, but an oral one. She (I withold her name for her own sake) had experienced serious abuse, both sexual and physical, in the years prior to the examination but had been trained **Abuse, even if alleged, is no laughing matter. That the Family has never made a serious internal investigation into these accusations of abuse and actively sought out the alleged abusers amongst its membership goes to show they do not consider this sort of behaviour to be criminal. --WalkerJ
 * As it would not be in the Family's best interest to publish negative results of a court case or investigation to its members, its internal publications cannot be relied upon for proof that all allegations have been proven false. Cognomen, I'm sure you've heard the saying "Don't believe everything you read in the papers." Allow me the liberty to paraphrase this quote for you now: "Don't believe everything you read in the GNs." WalkerJ 06:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 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
 * To Cognomen: You are implying here that that an upstanding, well-respected Christian judge (who has since presided over several highly publicized cases) would not have enough discretion to discern an honest testimony from an exaggerated or ellaborated one. The evidence he based his verdict on is clear for all to see in his judgement. I highly suggest you read this document before commenting on it as it appears you are not familar with it. WalkerJ 06:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Walker J: I would like to add to your observations that The Family had managed by the times these investigations took place, to thoroughly drill their children for the event of such investigations. This likely made it more difficult to discover those types of sexual abuse not involving penetration other than oral penetration.  Regarding Cognomen's assertions that the British case was handled lightly (as though years and a nearly 300-page decision would reflect a less than serious approach), his comments reflect certain misconceptions regarding procedural rules.  Finally, in at least one of the cases Cognomen cites, evidence was found in papers not cited on the CESNUR collection, that appeared to indicate sexual abuse of some of the children.  Incidentally, I possess certain documentation that CESNUR's website purports to publish, and understanding the original language, I have compared certain actual documents to CESNUR'S translation.  I unfortunately do not rely on that website any longer regarding the documents that I do not possess due to the glaring nature of an error in the version of documentation proferred on CESNUR's website.  Whether mistake or deliberate distortion, either way the error's nature severely undermines my confidence regarding information on that site in respect of court cases involving The Family. Josephson R.
 * Cognomen seems, as admittedly is his cultural and religious (or is it vocational?) prerogative, not to watch many of the law-related television shows that abound, from which lay persons can affordably learn enough to not be overly impressed by the peppering of one or two legal terms within a sentence that would require heavy revision before containing a correct statement of import. It may be of comfort to Cognomen as a paterfamilias in his organization to point out that the mere "discretion to discern an honest testimony," which you have mentioned, was most likely not by any stretch the primary test on which his Honor relied in evaluating life in this organization.  The Family seems to have had had ample legal representation in this matter, and this legal counsel must surely have been afforded every rightful opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses. Josephson R
 * The Anglo-American adversarial system relies heavily on cross-examination at trial to evaluate the reliability of a witness and to catch untruths and discredit. A reading of the judgment does not seem to show counsel for The Family failing to avail itself of this right of its client (and its own duty). For Cognomen's assertion that "witnesses with an axe to grind were allowed to say their piece without their evidence being tested" to be the case, The Family's counsel would have had to been woefully inadequate (say, napping during testimony for the Plaintiff and injudiciously passing on cross-examination).  If counsel for the Defendant had indeed allowed such "witnesses with an axe to grind [...] to say their piece without their evidence being tested," perhaps The Family has a claim against its counsel for malpractice or negligence? Josephson R
 * Moreover, while space for a treatise lacks here, with respect to Cognomen's concern regarding the "Hearsay and non-corroborated evidence" which he asserts the judge heard, it may allay such anxieties that on reading of the judgment one can find the judge giving reasoned account of how much or how little credence he gave to particular pieces of evidence when this is an issue. This was not a jury trial; it seems Cognomen is unaware that a judge, trained and in this case experienced, is not required to have the same "hand holding" that a collection of lay "peers" would and for which stepping in procedural rules is accordingly provided in the case of jury trials (a state of affairs which can give rise to much hand wringing over jury instructions by all concerned). Granted, it hardly seems feasible in a case of this length with the volume of evidence reviewed to ensure that each individual member of a hypothetical jury appropriately valued or discounted from each distinct piece of evidence without creating a jigsaw puzzle rife with opportunities for error; hence it seems a relief that a judge, and not a jury, was the arbiter of matters of fact (as a jury would otherwise be) in addition to matters of law. If it had indeed been a a trial by jury, one expects that Defendants' counsel could have successfully sustained more objections to any evidence that was hearsay. But this was not, as it happens, a jury trial.  A judge knows (or ought to know!), the rationale behind the rule against hearsay and know how to implement it, which he can be seen doing in his judgment as he is allowed to.  Cognomen, you might find it an interesting tidbit that even in the case of jury trials, where the inexperience and lack of training of a jury relative to that imputed to a judge imposes certain precautionary procedures, there are exceptions to the hearsay rule based on the rationale for such rule (on which an evidence treatise will have provide further background for the inquisitive, as space is a constraint here).  Josephson R
 * If The Family's representatives responsible for this litigation nonetheless thought the Judge made legal errors, setting aside the fact that it would seem to be in their own interests, wouldn't those representatives owe it to their constituency (particularly to parents concerned over the effect of precedent on custody of their children) to appeal? If the judge made legal errors and improperly admitted evidence, it seems it would have been incumbent on counsel to have advised The Family of the possibility of appeal (unless, again, counsel for The Family was utterly incompetent and a waste of The Family's (?) money).  Josephson R
 * On the perceived (by Cognomen) "looseness" of "the rules of evidence" and his complaint regarding the supposed lack of burden of proof (here I have to think he meant to say that he did not like how the burden of proof was allocated, as this would make more sense) it seems that nothing short of a thorough revision of the extant legal framework for custody matters is required to allay Cognomen's fears. I trust he lives elsewhere than England where he may live less personally affected and troubled by the status of these laws.  His statement regarding the admission of "non-corroborated" evidence (apparently number the documents backing up testimony do not satisfy him) seems to suggest a civil law regime lacking in jury trials is more familiar.   I would be remiss to overlook the statement by Cognomen that "Apparently, actual evidence, or perhaps rather the lack of it, and not testimony was what he must have based his final conclusion on."  Cognomen, who told you that the universe of "evidence" excludes testimony? -- Josephson R

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
 * To Cognomen: Please state the full legal name of the person you are referring to in the phrase "one of the witnesses against us". WalkerJ 06:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * To Cognomen:While you may not be guilty of these crimes, you nevertheless give monthly financial support to WS, the instigators of said abuse, who to this day have never made an official renunciation (both public and internal) of the offending doctrine. In fact, Maria's comments at the Summit of '93 (http://www.geocities.com/magicgreenshirt/downloads/summit_93__mama_jewels.pdf) reflect quite the opposite. WalkerJ 06:25, 10 Jan 2005 (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


 * Seems a lot like mainstreame christianity, so I'm going to vote for cult--172.133.159.102 13:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)