Talk:Children of God/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Children of God (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4 >	6 >>

Flirty Fishing - Discussion

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, no one ELSE seems to mind the deletion of the quote. I don't know how I can make my dislike of it any clearer, but I'll give it a shot anyway: Melton's quote doesn't even describe FFing. It ends with "...led them to pursue the idea." Any reader is going to be thinking "What idea?" (since this quote appears first). I would tolerate a more complete Melton quote that ACTUALLY describes FFing, but I think if you insist on quoting Melton, another article or section will pop up describing his utter lack of credibility in this field. I think that at this point, the various authors are working together quite well, despite their opposing viewpoints. That just leaves you and me squabbling over one paragraph, when my objection to it has nothing to do with my point of view; it is a question of style and readability. Again, if you want to put Melton's dance-class story (which I believe is false -- see below) in the context of FFing, please do so. I would, if I had time to research the publication that this quote came from. Please do not just put it back without explaining WHAT it contributes. Thank you. ThePedanticPrick 22:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Well written, ThePedanticPrick. I am also in favour of removing this quote unless a disclaimer or opposing quote (that actually describes this practice) is also included. Thorwald 23:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • 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)
    • I think that the quote of the Right Honorable Lord Justice Ward should remain. Of the three pullquotes, his is the only one that even approaches NPOV. He is not a member of the group, nor is he paid by the group, nor is he against the group in any way. In fact his judgement showed an incredible degree of tolerance, in light of the circumstances. He is a judge, without any personal link to either side and his neutrality on the issue has been well demonstrated and has not even been questioned by anyone in this discussion. And from that neutral standpoint he undertook the most comprehensive inquest into the inner workings of the family (including FFing) that has ever been effected. If anyone is qualified to comment on the true nature of FFing, it is he. EBW

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 ([1] 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 [[2]] 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: Stick to logic: How many woman go around in bars & wherenot to look for new men,"prey", not minding sex with them, who are politely asked to help, getting their businesscards & adding to those many,many more, not wishing, in most cases of being married themselves, to be married to those "fish"...how many "normal" woman, who otherwise have maybe one lover or few more to help them out, do you have, who behave like that, without being called a prostitute?For the others you have all kinds of slangwords, even for prostitutes.I agree with Pedantic Prick, you have quite a nerve, to get into those semantics here.It seems, you're not proud anymore of the groups history.According to my Longman-dictionary a prostitute is someone earning money by having sex with people, my emphasis is here on: people...people you casually meet.There were woman in the world, who got married to rich men & then by divorce finding themselves in immense wealth.It's another thing how to call that & whether they had money in mind or not.Don't tell me the husbands, the homes etc. had only the poor souls in mind.Where did you live in TF? Farmer7.1.05
      • 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)

The 7 F's of FFING 1/1/82 "...eff**ktive, effective, efficient, fruitful, financial, official & forever." I personally lived in homes in India in the eighties, where FFing was practised & it happened to have been the biggest contribution to the homefunds. You know Cognomen, why you consider FFing to have been so "altruistic", especially in it's beginning? Because those guys in London & Teneriffe splashed out "our" money from peddling literature etc.They could afford to be so "loving & giving". You must be kidding! You know, that some shopowners give their clients merchandise on the promise to be payed later, nevertheless they are merchants, some even donate to the poor, still they are merchants. According to your logic, they aren't merchants anymore! The family never followed something up, which wasn't somehow paying the bills, that was considered waste of time. --Farmer

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.