Give me a chance!

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Acheick
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 12:28 am
To Leocon
leocon - what you seem to be missing here is that by the sheer fact that you do support Maria (whom we know through her own writings, and those about her, abused her own son as well as Mene and who knows who else) and the upper ecehlon of leadership through your tithes and the reading of their prophecies and religious materials as well as promoting them, unfortunately for you, means that you also have to answer for their actions. It makes no difference that she or any of the other alleged abusers do not live in your home , you support them by supporting Maria and Peter and the work that they are doing. You can call yourself an individual, but for all intents and purposes you are not. Even your own literature states that. so why the suprise when people here expect you to have an answer? People are being honest and open with you, isn't that what you wanted?

And yes, you are a brave soul for venturing onto a "vandari" website, I will commend you for that. But you are going to have to realize there are going to be some tough questions, can you take it? Do you have any answers or did you just come here to visit and chit chat about nothing? You've come to a place where there is a lot of hurting and anger, yes. We have left loved ones behind who consider us "in other world" from them (I quote loosely from a current member very dear to me). Who has created this "us-them" world and separated us from our loved ones. This hurts deeply. And that is just one issue of many. If you are coming here to discuss some tough issues, I'm not sure how to make it any easier for you. You're going to have to tough it out some if you want to make any progress. I wish you well.
 
leocon
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 07:01 am
I feel a little ticked off round about now!
Hey, I did not come here so you can pick me apart and disect my guts for your viewing pleasure!!!
If you don't like the way I handle myself than take your party elsewhere!

I cam here for one purpose and one purpose only. I wanted to try to help X-members find closure for their PERSONAL hurts!

If you say that the Davidito book is responsible for someone else commiting abuse that is wrong. There are countless Authors who write about rape, suicide, murder and even pedophilia. If someone where to read one of their books and then get the sudden inspiration to go out and rape someone, what, are you going to blame the author of the book?

Come on! Try bringing that to a court of law and see what will happen! The Judge will laugh you to smithereens, thats what!

Again for the nth time, I am here to talk about you and your abuser! Thats it! Nothing less and nothing more!
If you don't like that than so be it! I have tried to do SOMETHING!
 
leocon
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 07:04 am
"Do you have any answers or did you just come here to visit and chit chat about nothing?"

So far none of you have been very helpful along the lines of MY requests!
Remember, I started this section with a clear explination of why I am here to begin with!
 
leocon
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 07:22 am
Quote:
You believe your wife's story even though you haven't seen any proof of it (correct me if I'm wrong)


Don't presume to know anything about my life, please! I have seen the proof and felt it! No further comment!

Quote:
Either you think it's a bad example, or you think it's a good likening. It can't be both. Which is it?


Yes I am sure you would like to hear me grovel and say that you were 100% correct, but mate, here again you are doing what most of you do and that is talk and talk about everything else....except the things that are REALLY useful! Basically you seem to be on a war path to undermine and humiliate me at every turn! I do not appreciate you taking your "life" out on me!

Quote:
ou can call yourself an individual, but for all intents and purposes you are not.


We will just have to agree to disagree here! Thats where you are off and that is where you lot begin your whole "you Family SGA's are all brainwashed and zombified morons" speach! I am an individual in the exact meaning of the word, and if you were to ask any doctor of science or psycology he would tell you the same!

Quote:
leocon - what you seem to be missing here is that by the sheer fact that you do support Maria (whom we know through her own writings, and those about her, abused her own son as well as Mene and who knows who else) and the upper ecehlon of leadership through your tithes and the reading of their prophecies and religious materials as well as promoting them, unfortunately for you, means that you also have to answer for their actions.


What you seem to be missing here is that YOU DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME except what I have made you privy to. I do not support ANYONE who commits child abuse and thats final.
If you want me to accept the accusation that Maria commited child abuse on anyone than I would have to believe that by faith, being that no one has ever proved that she has! The best some have come up with was some pictures of a naked woman lying with or cuddling Davidito and some text saying something regarding some woman having sucked Davidito's penis! Ummm, what about the very common practice that has been in action for hundreds, if not thousands, of year where mothers would suck their young sons penis to help the foreskin fold back? Fondling? You want to talk about fondling? Everytime a mother/dad/caregiver showers/bathes the young lad they also are required to "fondle" the penis or genitals in order to wash them properly!
So where are you going to go now? Are you going to say that "Yes, but their minds were perverted and lustful".
HA! So now you are presuming to know the mind of man? Pretty high and mighty stuff!

The Davidito debate can go on and on, but it will not make any relevant, physical difference to your PERSOANL case! So why not move on?!

GBYA
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 08:08 am
leocon wrote:
Yes I am sure you would like to hear me grovel and say that you were 100% correct ...


No, actually. I would have just as much liked to hear you say, "I stand by what I said. I think it was a great analogy. Period." It's not about being 100% correct. It's about accountability. We're all adults here, we should know that by now.

leocon wrote:
... here again you are doing what most of you do and that is talk and talk about everything else....except the things that are REALLY useful! Basically you seem to be on a war path to undermine and humiliate me at every turn! I do not appreciate you taking your "life" out on me!


Eman, please tell me if I'm not understanding you correctly: First you tell me "Don't presume to know anything about my life, please!" and then you proceed to assume things about my life.

My presumption about your knowledge of your wife's abuse was just that: a presumption. I was willing to be corrected on that matter, hence the prompt for as much. Now that you have explained, the issue is closed as far as I am concerned.

leocon wrote:
The best some have come up with was some pictures of a naked woman lying with or cuddling Davidito and some text saying something regarding some woman having sucked Davidito's penis! Ummm, what about the very common practice that has been in action for hundreds, if not thousands, of year where mothers would suck their young sons penis to help the foreskin fold back? Fondling? You want to talk about fondling? Everytime a mother/dad/caregiver showers/bathes the young lad they also are required to "fondle" the penis or genitals in order to wash them properly!


First, I would need you to present some form of evidence, or proof, that "mothers would suck their young sons penis to help the foreskin fold back" as a "very common practice that has been in action for hundreds, if not thousands, of year". Even a single historical reference to it would be help to make your statement hold more weight.

As an adult, I'm sure you are aware of the very large difference between touching a child's penis as a matter of healthcare and sexual stimulation. I'm also sure that you would not be so naive as to think that the only instances on which such contact occured with Davidito was when a photographer was present.

By all of that, I take it you do not believe Ricky was abused. Is that correct?

leocon wrote:
So where are you going to go now? Are you going to say that "Yes, but their minds were perverted and lustful".
HA! So now you are presuming to know the mind of man? Pretty high and mighty stuff!


Considering that is exactly what you did in the previous sentence, I don't think you really consider it that high and mighty.

The assumptions and consecutive assumption of what I am going to say is hardly conducive to talking shop. Don't you agree?

leocon wrote:
The Davidito debate can go on and on, but it will not make any relevant, physical difference to your PERSOANL case! So why not move on?!


As I said in a previous post, yes, it would. Because if it wasn't for the Davidito book, I would have never experienced what I did. And if you cannot accept that Ricky was abused, then you will not believe me when I say I was abused. And if you do not believe my story of abuse, then you can't really help me. Do you see my point?

Look, Eman. I'm not trying to tear into you. I don't think you're the "enemy" and I'm not out to make you look like a fool at every turn. But if you want us to take you seriously you have got to start putting some serious thought behind what you write.

For what it's worth, I used to come across as being just as arrogant as you. When I look back, I think I would have appreciated someone telling me I was making a total ass out of myself. (That still holds true now.)

But I might just be projecting my past onto you, so if you want me to stop calling you on this stuff, just let me know.
 
evanman
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 08:49 am
Quote:
If you say that the Davidito book is responsible for someone else commiting abuse that is wrong. There are countless Authors who write about rape, suicide, murder and even pedophilia. If someone where to read one of their books and then get the sudden inspiration to go out and rape someone, what, are you going to blame the author of the book?

Come on! Try bringing that to a court of law and see what will happen! The Judge will laugh you to smithereens, thats what!


This was brought to the High Courts in London. The Judge, Lord Justice Ward, did not laugh, in fact he had some very severe comments to make concerning that matter. You can read a transcript of his ruling on the xfamily website.
http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Complete_Judgment_of_Lord_Justice_Ward

Quote:
The Davidito Book

This was first printed in a series of letters from about 1975 to 1981 and then reprinted in 1982. In the letter "The Advantages of Having Children" May 1978, Berg explained how when Maria became pregnant, they discovered there was no childcare ministry and so they obtained whatever literature they needed and decided they did not like it "because it was not the way we believed in rearing kids!" It seems that Davidito had started the childcare revolution. Berg wrote:-

"You can throw a lot of that old stuff out! We're writing a whole new childcare series called The Davidito Series. Maria was wondering why she had to get pregnant and have a baby. She couldn't see any good reason for it at all, but look what happened! God knew why! Amen? PLT! Davidito was to become an example to the world and inspire" lots of childcare material! Thank God!"

Berg was, in my judgment, quite clear giving his approval to whatever was being written and he was assuming responsibility for it. It is naive of The Family to seek to distance the leadership from this book and cast the sole blame upon Sara. In their original answer filed in this case, that is exactly what they sought to do.

The book contained these passages:-

a) Learning fun at 20 months, October '76.

"Sex! he gets quite excited when I wash his bottom and his penie gets real big and hard. I kiss it all over till he gets so excited he bursts into laughter and spreads his legs open for more. I wonder what it's going to be like when he begins to talk and asks me for more? When playing on the floor he's often times spread his legs open for me to kiss his penis (what we call his penie). He got to where he liked it so much he'd pull people by the hand down onto the floor and would spread his legs apart for "the treatment" so we had to explain to him that there are a lot more important things in life than just sex, and for a time and place for everything!" (I note that this chapter appeared at the same time as "Little Girl Dream.")

b) At the age of 2 years and 3 months Davidito is taken to a brothel and in the early hours one of the girls "gave a special little show for Davidito with her gyrations and heavy breathing, running her hands over her body, really turning everybody on".

c) In Bed Bugs, May 1977 with Davidito 2 years 4 months. Sara wrote:- "Sex! Now if I share with you some of Davidito's sexy experiences, will you try prayerfully and cautiously to benefit from the lessons learned and follow the Lord's leadings in possibly sharing the same kind of gentle love and fun, without stumbling our little sheep? Sex is a beautiful God-given wonderful part of life we enjoy together and we would love to share it with you as long as you don't use it as "an occasion to the flesh" and in some way that could actually harm or confuse the children. It is often times the little ones who suffer through our big people mistakes." (In other words, provided you do it in love, the child will not suffer harm or confusion - a thesis that Dr. Heller, NT's own expert, roundly deprecates.) "So we'll attempt to share a few of our experiences with you, not so that you will try to do exactly what we do," ( then why on earth tell them this sordid little encounter? ) "but because it's part of little David's life story, praise the Lord. On 28th April after nap time Alfred, Davidito and I were all three loving up, when Dito looked at me with those big dreamy canary black eyes and said, "Sarah I yub you". He pulled me down to kiss him, then pushed my head down to kiss some more! It all developed so gently and lovingly that he was really affectionate, eyes closed, so guess what happened? For a bouncing climax (ha), he spoke out in excited foreign tongues! He sounded so very happy....afterwards he lay still in my arms to rest....now often when we lay on the bed together....he'll put his arm around me and say, "Sarah, love me up big".

That letter cannot be interpreted otherwise than Sara kissing the boys penis and the boy later simulating sexual intercourse with her as is shown in one of the pictures. To that Berg added this comment, again an indication of his participation in the writing of this book and his approval of it:

"God made children able to enjoy sex so he must have expected them to. I did! All my life! Thank God! I love it! And it didn't hurt me any! Nearly all kids to anyhow despite prohibitions! And the only reason the system frowns on it is that the churches have taught sex as evil! Which is contrary to the Bible! How could God have created sexual enjoyment to be a sin? The system is really screwed up! God help us! They're the ones not normal! But let not your good be evil spoken of! So take it easy!"

(d) At 2 yrs 7 months Sara wrote:-

"Dito and I loved up together after our bath! Ha! What a revolutionary life we do lead!".

The photograph below that passage showed the two of them naked on the bed with Sara fondling the boys penis.

(e) There were some words of caution. In December 1977:-

"And please remember dear Family, that we do not share Davidito's own experiences or lessons with you expecting you to always do the very same thing with your own children. Dad and Maria are hoping to prepare themselves for a very special God appointed mission in life. He is a royal prince...he has matured and grown very fast, much like Dad himself, always ahead of us, who his followers learn from as an example. Of course all our Family children are very special and we have an extremely important mission to fulfil in these latter days we do hope you can apply what lessons you may have learnt from this story in their disciple training. What a wonderful opportunity and blessing that we can all take part in helping to teach God's little children who are so chosen in new fresh vessels the way the truth and the life of Jesus Christ and our shepherd and king David."

As I read that it is more encouraging than discouraging.

(f) In August 1979 the now notorious "My Little Fish" chapter was published. There were citations from Revolutionary Sex and accompanying photographs. They showed, for example, Davidito kissing Sara's breasts and squeezing her nipples, they showed them together naked in bed hugging each other under the caption "Enjoy yourself in what God has given you to enjoy" and in another photograph under a caption "When two shall lie together they shall have heat." The original also had the photograph of Sara sucking the boy's penis above a caption "It's a wonderful relaxation, a satisfaction created by the Lord". At the time it was published, My Childhood Sex, itself published four months earlier, might have been fresh in everyone's mind. That it was outrageously inappropriate seems to be conceded silently by that omission of that photograph when the book was published in 1982.

(g) In March 1978 at aged 3 years 2 months Davidito wandered around watching the copulating couples at the "come-union":

"So next he wanted his turn and as soon as I got into bed he jumped on me and said "Sarah love me". He specifically asked for several swigs of wine, got happy real quick so we really had a good time! Alf, Tim and Mommy were outside the door listening to him. "Sara now kiss it!" and then he began to laugh and laugh. "Oh it flopped in your nose!"...he kept asking for more and more love....We were all really surprised that he took everything so well, since he didn't have a playmate too and is usually very jealous about "sharing" but he waited his turn and was a real good boy."

(h) In April 1978 at 3 years 3 months Sara wrote:

"Sex - (do you find yourself looking for this part to read first? Ha!) Several times while I was gone to Egypt, David mentioned he'd wished I'd hurry home to bed. The day upon my return we had a nice picnic lunch with Alf right by the riverside near our house. David wanted to bring a blanket and a scented candle so that we could make love, but there were too many people around so we didn't quite get to the climax, Ha. But it was a real cute idea. He's so precious! One night when Alf and the cook were kissing and cuddling in the living room on the living room couch, David came into the bedroom and offered me a glass of wine then suggested that we go together into the living room to be with Alf. We sat down and he said, "Have some apply juice," because he's only a little boy and once served then we began to love up too. We got undressed and he got real affectionate, trying to do just what Alf did."

What can this be other than that this 3 year old boy was participating in sexual shenanigans with his nanny?

The book ended with a cartoon of Berg holding Davidito and saying, "Davidito do you know what you're doing? You're teaching the whole world how to take care of babies!"

The leadership must have known and intended that this book be acted upon by The Family. In July 1978 they published in Family News a letter from one of the members who wrote with reference to her new child that she wondered now how these letters were going to become a reality in his life. Had she not been perverted by them?
 
Jack 2
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 01:55 pm
Leocon/Eman, you have no right to speak about Ricky. You did not know him. I personally knew Ricky and I know your perverse religion, and their leaders broke the poor kid.

leocon wrote:
So far none of you have been very helpful along the lines of MY requests!
Remember, I started this section with a clear explination of why I am here to begin with!

You started this thread requesting a chance. You had your chance. You requested refrain from usage of "low-class terminology." We all have (you said 'ticked off'). You were looking for people who sincerely are looking for closure. You are now shunning those people. You have ignored my questions and requests. You are a liar. You are on this site with an agenda which you are not being open about. You are not interested in helping. You are not worth interacting with.

Shut up, learn some spelling and grammar and go suck Jesus' dick.
 
leocon
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 04:41 pm
Jack wrote:
Leocon/Eman, you have no right to speak about Ricky. You did not know him. I personally knew Ricky and I know your perverse religion, and their leaders broke the poor kid.

leocon wrote:
So far none of you have been very helpful along the lines of MY requests!
Remember, I started this section with a clear explination of why I am here to begin with!

You started this thread requesting a chance. You had your chance. You requested refrain from usage of "low-class terminology." We all have (you said 'ticked off'). You were looking for people who sincerely are looking for closure. You are now shunning those people. You have ignored my questions and requests. You are a liar. You are on this site with an agenda which you are not being open about. You are not interested in helping. You are not worth interacting with.

Shut up, learn some spelling and grammar and go suck Jesus' dick.


I thank you for your views!
 
leocon
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 04:49 pm
evanman wrote:
Quote:
If you say that the Davidito book is responsible for someone else commiting abuse that is wrong. There are countless Authors who write about rape, suicide, murder and even pedophilia. If someone where to read one of their books and then get the sudden inspiration to go out and rape someone, what, are you going to blame the author of the book?

Come on! Try bringing that to a court of law and see what will happen! The Judge will laugh you to smithereens, thats what!


This was brought to the High Courts in London. The Judge, Lord Justice Ward, did not laugh, in fact he had some very severe comments to make concerning that matter. You can read a transcript of his ruling on the xfamily website.
http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Complete_Judgment_of_Lord_Justice_Ward


Yes, I thought this would come up. Thank You!

The matter was brought up, as you said, and it was closed! No futher comment!
 
Acheick
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 05:20 pm
my oh my
Wow, Leocon, I'm still falling over myself over this statement of yours:

leocon wrote:
The best some have come up with was some pictures of a naked woman lying with or cuddling Davidito and some text saying something regarding some woman having sucked Davidito's penis! Ummm, what about the very common practice that has been in action for hundreds, if not thousands, of year where mothers would suck their young sons penis to help the foreskin fold back? Fondling? You want to talk about fondling? Everytime a mother/dad/caregiver showers/bathes the young lad they also are required to "fondle" the penis or genitals in order to wash them properly!

I can't believe you really believe this. Here is a perfect example of why TFI can bold-faced state that there was not widespread sexual abuse of minors because they have been conditioned to believe and told by their leadership that what happened to Ricky was not abuse - wow. Now that's a bomb. And please, don't tell me there is no difference between giving a baby a bath and sucking his penis for sexual gratification or to prove how sexually free one is or to introduce the child to one's sexual freedoms and you know that was what that book and those examples were all about. Read it again.

Then we have Ricky's own words about what happened to him later on in life and Mene's words about what happened to her which is simply criminal, plain and simple. We've all seen the but naked dancing videos of young children. How can you get around that? I thought you said you knew there was abuse that went on and it wasn't right, now you are trying to explain it away.

I have an FN Encyclopedia where a father is proudly talking about how happy he was to have his teenage and young children involved in the "Sex revolution." Come on, we were there - you can't fool us.

And as far as the Judge's ruling - the case may be closed, but the opinions of the judge stand as precedent and can be relied on in future cases. I think you are uninformed as to the proceedings in courts of law.
 
leocon
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 05:48 pm
WalkerJ wrote:
leocon wrote:
Yes I am sure you would like to hear me grovel and say that you were 100% correct ...


No, actually. I would have just as much liked to hear you say, "I stand by what I said. I think it was a great analogy. Period." It's not about being 100% correct. It's about accountability. We're all adults here, we should know that by now.

leocon wrote:
... here again you are doing what most of you do and that is talk and talk about everything else....except the things that are REALLY useful! Basically you seem to be on a war path to undermine and humiliate me at every turn! I do not appreciate you taking your "life" out on me!


Eman, please tell me if I'm not understanding you correctly: First you tell me "Don't presume to know anything about my life, please!" and then you proceed to assume things about my life.

My presumption about your knowledge of your wife's abuse was just that: a presumption. I was willing to be corrected on that matter, hence the prompt for as much. Now that you have explained, the issue is closed as far as I am concerned.

leocon wrote:
The best some have come up with was some pictures of a naked woman lying with or cuddling Davidito and some text saying something regarding some woman having sucked Davidito's penis! Ummm, what about the very common practice that has been in action for hundreds, if not thousands, of year where mothers would suck their young sons penis to help the foreskin fold back? Fondling? You want to talk about fondling? Everytime a mother/dad/caregiver showers/bathes the young lad they also are required to "fondle" the penis or genitals in order to wash them properly!


First, I would need you to present some form of evidence, or proof, that "mothers would suck their young sons penis to help the foreskin fold back" as a "very common practice that has been in action for hundreds, if not thousands, of year". Even a single historical reference to it would be help to make your statement hold more weight.

As an adult, I'm sure you are aware of the very large difference between touching a child's penis as a matter of healthcare and sexual stimulation. I'm also sure that you would not be so naive as to think that the only instances on which such contact occured with Davidito was when a photographer was present.

By all of that, I take it you do not believe Ricky was abused. Is that correct?

leocon wrote:
So where are you going to go now? Are you going to say that "Yes, but their minds were perverted and lustful".
HA! So now you are presuming to know the mind of man? Pretty high and mighty stuff!


Considering that is exactly what you did in the previous sentence, I don't think you really consider it that high and mighty.

The assumptions and consecutive to the assumption of what I am going to say is hardly conducive to talking shop. Don't you agree?

leocon wrote:
The Davidito debate can go on and on, but it will not make any relevant, physical difference to your PERSOANL case! So why not move on?!


As I said in a previous post, yes, it would. Because if it wasn't for the Davidito book, I would have never experienced what I did. And if you cannot accept that Ricky was abused, then you will not believe me when I say I was abused. And if you do not believe my story of abuse, then you can't really help me. Do you see my point?

Look, Eman. I'm not trying to tear into you. I don't think you're the "enemy" and I'm not out to make you look like a fool at every turn. But if you want us to take you seriously you have got to start putting some serious thought behind what you write.

For what it's worth, I used to come across as being just as arrogant as you. When I look back, I think I would have appreciated someone telling me I was making a total ass out of myself. (That still holds true now.)

But I might just be projecting my past onto you, so if you want me to stop calling you on this stuff, just let me know.


Alright, I stand by what I said and the anology I made!
I said "it seems" which is as good as saying "I think". But ok are we done talking about all the nitty-gritty? I apologize if you have felt hurt or confused by anything I have said.

As far as proof about the Foreskin issue is concerned, I would love to find the various books and magazines which have broached the subject, and I will try to find them again! I am surprised you have neer heard about this. It was something that was used in the "less civilised" areas of the world so that might be one of the reasons why its not that well known of!

As far as the Davidito issue, I will not be able to say that "I know that he was abused" simply because I was not there and "I don't know"! And I definitely cannot know that any particular person was the abuser, and frankly I do not see how anyone could. But if you have evidence of what you say then please share it with me in point by point form!

For the nth time, you cannot blame the abuse you experienced on a book! If you want to continue to do so then there is nothing that can be done for you on a semiprofessional or professional level simply because it would never stand in a court and would never make a case, and that is what you want right.....or no?

I appreciate your communications.....even if at times it does not apear that way to you! GBY
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 09:40 pm
Hellooo -- Compare and Contrast Anyone?
Leocon, in the group, at least in my day, you didn't read any fiction. Do you forget "The Uneager Beaver"? When the Davidito Book came out, there was no fiction reading in the group. You read the letters. You LIVED the letters. Or you were out. The letters included The Devil Hates Sex, My Childhood Sex, the Little Girl Dream, Child Brides, Answers to Your Questions. Besides the letters, you read other Family publications that set the tone of your life. These books were not entertainment. They were guidance. I don't blame you (yet) for being unable to tell the difference, because I was also raised to denigrate being "analytical." I found out as I was getting an education that it is based on thinking skills- indeed, analytical skills.

Please tell me you don't think these are the same?! Good luck trying college if you do!!

Or maybe you realize they are different and are forgetting that your audience knows more than the systemites who you might be able to fool, who don't know like us that you live the letters to be a Family member.
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2005 10:12 pm
leocon wrote:
I apologize if you have felt hurt or confused by anything I have said.

Thanks for the apology. I've got thick skin, so I haven't taken personal offence to anything you've said so far. But thanks for the gesture anyway.

leocon wrote:
As far as proof about the Foreskin issue is concerned, I would love to find the various books and magazines which have broached the subject, and I will try to find them again! I am surprised you have neer heard about this. It was something that was used in the "less civilised" areas of the world so that might be one of the reasons why its not that well known of!

Actually, I have heard about it. Berg even used that in order to justify what was done to Ricky. Problem is, last I checked, that was done to Ricky in the late 20th century, by which time such practices where most certainly frowned upon.

Moreover, the primitive practice was a form of medical treatment and certainly had nothing to do with "love-up time" or "showing the Lord's love to a child". Eman, if the overtly sexual tone of those particular chapters in the Story of Davidito is not apparent to you; if you think you can explain them away as "foreskin care", then you are more dense than I would have expected.

leocon wrote:
As far as the Davidito issue, I will not be able to say that "I know that he was abused" simply because I was not there and "I don't know"!

Remind me again: who is asking you to "know that he was abused"? My words were "Do you believe..." "Do you consider..." and "Do you think...".

So again: Based on the accounts in the Story of Davidito, do you consider Ricky to have been abused? Yes or No?

I can answer that question easily. Why can't you?

Here's my idea of why you can't answer that question (Caution: Truck loads of assumptions coming up):

Option A) If you say "No", you are in essence condoning the act. This means you would have no objection to your wife performing such an act on your own son (should you eventually have one). Should any photos of this act be taken, you wouldn't mind if they were published for the world to see. The problem is, you can't imagine allowing that to be done to your son, so you now have:

Option B) You label it as abuse, thereby being forced to admit that the people you revered as God's prophets are abusers. You must then call into question your financial support of them, your belief in their teachings and your lifestyle. This is, of course, far too uncomfortable for you (after all, it's not easy to question authority and hold them to the Biblical principal of "them that have the rule over you" having to "give account") so you select:

Option C) Ignore the issue. Make vague statements about it if pressed for an answer. Insist that the topic should be changed. Convince yourself that you are doing the right thing. Feel good about yourself.

Of course, you could easily blow my assumption out of the water with one of 2 simple words: 'Yes' and 'No'. Which is it?

leocon wrote:
But if you have evidence of what you say then please share it with me in point by point form!

I did. You ignored it. A noteworthy judge condemned the book after studying it, it has been decried by thousands around the globe. Apparently you wouldn't know evidence if it hit you with a 2-by-4.

Look, Eman, if you don't believe me, why don't you just write Maria and Peter and ask them, "Did adult women have sex with Davidito? Did the sex continue until he was 12 years old." Please, don't take my word for it. Ask them yourself.

I did that while I was still in the Family. I sent them a long list of questions. Their reply was, "We're not going to answer those questions because it would be bad for security". But who knows? You might get lucky.

leocon wrote:
For the nth time, you cannot blame the abuse you experienced on a book!

That's cute. Smile I'm not stupid, Eman. I am not blaming a book for my abuse. I am blaming the authors and the publishers of that book. I am blaming the people who saw fit to document these acts and encourage their followers to do likewise. I am holding Maria and Peter accountable for my abuse and the abuse of my friends.

And, please, don't try to tell me that if someone published an illustrated book about the benefits of having sex with young children, that the author would not be investigated by the police, would not be sued by victims for negligence and the book would not be outlawed.

You say you want to help me find closure? Get me an audience with Peter or Maria, then we'll start talking closure. Can you do that? If not, then what concrete thing is it that you are offering to do for me?
 
leocon
 
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 05:54 am
Quote:
Based on the accounts in the Story of Davidito, do you consider Ricky to have been abused? Yes or No?


First we must make a certain thing clear here.
Lets see the definitions of the word:

abuse —v.
1 use improperly, misuse.
2 insult verbally.
3 maltreat.
4 unjust or corrupt practice.

Now you asked whether, based on the accounts in the Story of Davidito book, do I consider Ricky to have been abused!

My answer is: NO!

According to the book there is only proof that any sexual interaction he was engaged in was enjoyed by him. There is nothing in the book stating or anything written which would lead me to think that what was happening to him was painful to him or that it was done against him wanting or enjoying it!
To the contrary there is mention of him being the one to ask women to suck him off, he enjoyed it that much. Now whether it was good for him or not is something that psycologists are still arguing about to this very day.
Some say that it is completely heathful and normal for humans at a very young age to be open and inquisative about their sexuality. Others say that children should be taught to not even dable into the sexual aspects in life until quite a bit later on.

Would I do it or let someone else do it to my son (if I had one)? No! Simply because my PERSONAL feelings about it are more conservative than others might be.

Let me enlighten you further on the subject of Ricky.

When he was around 19-20 yrs of age he traveled to Australia around the time of the raids and court cases here. He was talked to by many reporters and psycologists. He was found to be a well adjusted young man, especially for his age, and was muture beyond his years. They saw nothing in him that would have suggested that he was in any way abused as a child.
It was after leaving The Family and falling into the wrong companionship that sent him into the messed up state that he ended up in. Any psycologist who interviewed him around that time when he was 19-20 would agree to that! Its called "Mass-Histeria" and I got to experience it firsthand when I was told that I was abused.

So now you have my answer!
 
WalkerJ 1
 
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 07:45 am
leocon wrote:
It was after leaving The Family and falling into the wrong companionship that sent him into the messed up state that he ended up in. Any psycologist who interviewed him around that time when he was 19-20 would agree to that! Its called "Mass-Histeria" and I got to experience it firsthand when I was told that I was abused.

And you have proof of this? Or are you just taking the word of your leaders in whose best interest it is to distract from their own blame and create an "us vs. them" environment?

Did you know that for 5 years before he committed suicide, Ricky had little contact with ex-Family members (certainly not the ones who the Family labels "vitriolic")?

Did you know that Ricky had almost no contact with former members when he wrote this:

Ricky Rodriguez wrote:
Some days I have come so close to snapping and going back to their compound--but not for a social visit and not as a repentant prodigal, but as an avenger. I don't see why I should have to pay for their sins. I feel like we would be even and I could get on with my life. They f***ed with me. I made them pay dearly for it, and then I could move on.

Of course, I am no ninja, and so it would be far from a surgical strike and a lot of the people there would probably end up getting hurt too.
http://www.rickyrodriguez.org/documents/Ricky_to_James_22_December_00.pdf

Mind you, this was written in 2000. The year he left the group.

Have you watched the video he made before he murdered Sue? He says he's been wanting to commit suicide and imagined doing violent things to his shepherds since he was 11 years old.

leocon wrote:
According to the book there is only proof that any sexual interaction he was engaged in was enjoyed by him. There is nothing in the book stating or anything written which would lead me to think that what was happening to him was painful to him or that it was done against him wanting or enjoying it! To the contrary there is mention of him being the one to ask women to suck him off, he enjoyed it that much.

You cannot begin to imagine how disgustingly sick your above comment is. You state that a child, whose amygdala is completely undeveloped, should be allowed to determine what is good for them.

You are, in essence, saying that if a child wants to be sucked off by an adult, the adult should oblige. Are you insane?

The question is not, "How did this two-year-old boy feel about it?", but rather "WHAT THE F*** WAS GOING THROUGH THE MIND OF THE 28 YEAR OLD?"

leocon wrote:
When he was around 19-20 yrs of age he traveled to Australia around the time of the raids and court cases here. He was talked to by many reporters and psycologists. He was found to be a well adjusted young man, especially for his age, and was muture beyond his years. They saw nothing in him that would have suggested that he was in any way abused as a child.

Did you know that when Lawrence Lilliston (yes, it was a single psychologist, and no reporters either) interviewed Rick, Rick refused to answer any questions about sex or his sexual history or his feelings about the matter?

Lord Justice Ward wrote:
Likewise his conclusion about Davidito. This was an opportunity to explore exactly what had taken place in Berg's household. He merely touched upon these matters and Davidito made it obvious he was not prepared to talk about it. Nor did they talk about the reasons which impelled that young man to make attempts on his life said by The Family to have been caused by Satanic influences. Because I conclude that Dr Lilliston was not too concerned critically to examine The Family's past, I cannot be sure I get an accurate picture from him.
http://www.xfamily.org/index.php/Complete_Judgment_of_Lord_Justice_Ward#THE_PSYCHOLOGICAL_AND_PSYCHIATRIC_EVIDENCE

Seriously, dude. You should do your research if you're going to attempt to enlighten anyone.

leocon wrote:
So now you have my answer!

Yes, I have your answer. But, it is painfully obvious that you--the man who demands proof for everything--are basing your conclusion on little more than hearsay.
 
Thorwald 1
 
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 08:46 am
leocon wrote:
According to the book there is only proof that any sexual interaction he was engaged in was enjoyed by him. There is nothing in the book stating or anything written which would lead me to think that what was happening to him was painful to him or that it was done against him wanting or enjoying it! To the contrary there is mention of him being the one to ask women to suck him off, he enjoyed it that much. Now whether it was good for him or not is something that psycologists are still arguing about to this very day.


I find this insanely sick! What is wrong with you, dude?! However, even if some people don't find it sick and wrong, we still have laws in just about every country on the planet that prohibit this kind of stuff . . . on penalty of imprisonment. Ever heard of "statutory rape"? It doesn't matter if the child is begging you to have sex with him or her . . . it is illegal for you to comply! That is what we are talking about here. What they condoned was a criminal act. It doesn't matter what you believe on the matter, until you can change the law (and good luck with that), you face criminal prosecution if you engage is this activity. Don't you get it?

leocon wrote:
Some say that it is completely heathful and normal for humans at a very young age to be open and inquisative about their sexuality. Others say that children should be taught to not even dable into the sexual aspects in life until quite a bit later on.


Who are these people? Criminals and paedophiles? Are these the same people who say, "Sex before eight or it is too late"?

leocon wrote:
Let me enlighten you further on the subject of Ricky.


You are kidding, right? Did you ever live with Ricky, like I did? Do you know anything about the situation besides what your leaders have told you? I apologise if I am wrong here.

leocon wrote:
When he was around 19-20 yrs of age he traveled to Australia around the time of the raids and court cases here. He was talked to by many reporters and psycologists. He was found to be a well adjusted young man, especially for his age, and was muture beyond his years. They saw nothing in him that would have suggested that he was in any way abused as a child.


Did you pull that statement right out of a GN? Were you in Australia when he was interviewed? But wait, let me enlighten you: It was not "many reporters and psycologists (sic)", it was one.

leocon wrote:
It was after leaving The Family and falling into the wrong companionship that sent him into the messed up state that he ended up in. Any psycologist who interviewed him around that time when he was 19-20 would agree to that! Its called "Mass-Histeria" and I got to experience it firsthand when I was told that I was abused.


Did you know that he and Nicole shunned the entire "exer community"? They lived quietly by themselves in Tacoma, Washington for years. He wrote most of his anti-TFI material just after leaving your group. In fact, he even wrote some fairly anti-TFI stuff while still in your group. Don't believe me, read these:
Writings by Ricky Rodriguez

Might I suggest you quit while you are still ahead (if)? You are only proving our points with your every post.
 
evanman
 
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 11:18 am
Even when the Davidito series has Photos of Ricky being abused, and you don't think it was abuse?

Ricky was a small child for crying out loud!

I was abused when I was young by an older girl, I did not dislike it, but it still doesn't make it right what she did to me!

So it's ok to have sex with children if the child enjoys it?

That's the excuse many paedophiles use!--David Berg being one!
 
Jack 2
 
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 03:28 pm
leocon wrote:
Now you asked whether, based on the accounts in the Story of Davidito book, do I consider Ricky to have been abused!

My answer is: NO!


I can only hope your child is taken away from you and you can only hope we never cross paths. You are sick. Using your mouth on a child's penis is improper use of the child and by your own skewed/edited definition of child abuse. I can't believe we're even trying to maintain an intelligent conversation with someone who has any tolerence for this type of abuse.

Please see: http://www.answers.com/abuse
Which includes "3. To force sexual activity on; rape or molest." or the legal definition: "To engage in sexual activity with (a child under an age specified by statute)"

Again, regarding Ricky, you are just repeating the pre-packaged handout that TF fed to you. Speak to people who lived with him before and after TF before you jump to your ridiculous conclusions.

You enrage me.
 
Anonymous
 
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 04:28 pm
amazing
Well, I'm glad Leocon came here and spilled his guts. Now I have all this ammunition to confront F. members about their skewed belief system and tolerance of child abuse when they try and claim they do not tolerate it. Please, LeoCon, keep talking, this is great. Now we know the silly lies Maria has been feeding you.

And about your absurd illustration that cleaning the foreskin with a mother's tongue was acceptable for health reasons is so off the chart, I can hardly comment. That's akin to saying - well, slavery was an accepted practice in ancient cultures, hey -let's get back to it again.

You said you came here to help, but all you've done is pissed off everyone you claimed to have wanted to help. I suspect you came here to preach, not to help. You came here to try and persuade these "apostates" of your and your group's innocense to try and take the heat off of you and TF. IF what I suspect is true, then you may as well give up, because it ain't gonna happen.
 
leocon
 
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2005 10:29 pm
WalkerJ, I hope you don't mind that I, for a time, ignore everyone else here and just tune into what you have to say.

Quote:
And you have proof of this? Or are you just taking the word of your leaders in whose best interest it is to distract from their own blame and create an "us vs. them" environment?


For one, there is nothing to create! There already a "us vs them" enviroment!
And as far as proof....I would like to see you come up with a better reason for why he had such a sudden change of heart after he felt The Family!
See I believe that when you are in rebellion against God and His Will for your life, that that leaves you open to the dark side.....and then anything horrible is possible. Will you just shove this back at me as some fanatical belief?

Quote:
Did you know that for 5 years before he committed suicide, Ricky had little contact with ex-Family members (certainly not the ones who the Family labels "vitriolic")?

Did you know that Ricky had almost no contact with former members when he wrote this:


And you have proof of this, or do you just believe what everyone else tells you?


Quote:
Have you watched the video he made before he murdered Sue? He says he's been wanting to commit suicide and imagined doing violent things to his shepherds since he was 11 years old.


Yes I did watch it! And yes its a tragic thought that he would want to resort to violence at the age of 11yrs. (If that is indeed the truth-Yes I might even be saying that he was capable of lying.....as are we all!)


Quote:
You cannot begin to imagine how disgustingly sick your above comment is. You state that a child, whose amygdala is completely undeveloped, should be allowed to determine what is good for them.

You are, in essence, saying that if a child wants to be sucked off by an adult, the adult should oblige. Are you insane?

The question is not, "How did this two-year-old boy feel about it?", but rather "WHAT THE F*** WAS GOING THROUGH THE MIND OF THE 28 YEAR OLD?"


And this is why I do not like answering your questions, because no matter what I say you will always find a way to discriminate and undermine what I say! It does not matter at all what I say...... unless I was to come and join you in your bloody crusade!

You twist and contort my words! I said "According to the book there is only proof that any sexual interaction he was engaged in was enjoyed by him"! Tell me otherwise and then prove it!

You asked me "Based on the accounts in the Story of Davidito, do you consider Ricky to have been abused?" and i gave you a clear and sensible reply to that question. I based my answer "on the accounts in the Story of Davidito" which were all peachy. There was no violence, no physically hurtful going's on! Whether what was written in the book was true or not is something entirely different! Go ahead and judge that yourself!

And, no I would not do anything of the sort to my children simply because I do not agree with that level of openess to sex. I think it should be preserved for later on in life. Just because I choose to not do something does not make it wrong for anyone else to do it! That is seriously silly logic!
Kids are always, and I mean young kids, playing doctor and fondling one another while bathing etc. I have even seen little 1yr olds sitting on the potty and fondling themselves (That was in a secular Kindergarden...mind you)

Times were very different back then and since things have changed the world over and so has The Family!


Quote:
Did you know that when Lawrence Lilliston (yes, it was a single psychologist, and no reporters either) interviewed Rick, Rick refused to answer any questions about sex or his sexual history or his feelings about the matter?


OK I stand corrected! I heard that from a few people, but I guess they were just saying it as a manner of speech. However as far as his refusal to "answer any questions about sex or his sexual history or his feelings about the matter", what do you think was the reason for that?
 
 

 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 12/13/2017 at 04:24:44