xFamily

Read Topic
Reply

Is this site really objective and fair?

xFamily
» General
» Is this site really objective and fair?

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

Is this site really objective and fair?
Hello,

I have been involved with "The Family" on and off with regard to their charitable activities. Xfamily.com claims to be objective, yet they do not report all of "The Family's" positive and incredible charity work.

I found this article on The Family's official website:http://www.thefamily.org/work/article.php3?id=967

Help for the Homeless - May, 2006

By Claire

Every Saturday night we feed the homeless in Gifu City. We usually give a rich hot bowl of noodles or a homemade obento (boxed meal) and bananas. We also give fitting Word and prayer to each of the 15 or 20 people we feed.

One fellow commented recently, "Since you have been coming and praying for us, good things have been happening." This man had received medical treatment for a longstanding ailment, another homeless man's family had had a change of heart and taken him back into their home, and a third man set up a lending library of all the inspirational and faith-building publications we have given them, which they are all benefiting from.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

If XFamily.com claims to be objective they should report ALL of "The Family's" activities. I can appreciate alot of the information that xfamily reports and have even used alot of it to help me understand "The Family", but the fact remains that xfamily.com is very biased and is not giving people the full story about "The Family". The website seems more of a smear campaign than an objective informative website.

If this website wants to be an objective and informative website they should report everything "The Family" does and not just give people limited information.

I would suggest people look at The Family's official website to find out other activities "The Family" is involved in: http://www.thefamily.org

Re: Is this site really objective and fair?

Bubbles1 wrote:

If XFamily.com claims to be objective they should report ALL of "The Family's" activities.

Being objective has nothing to do with reporting every little thing the Family does. The volunteer xFamily.org editors work on this site during their free time, not to mention that we aren't omnipresent. Wink

It is disingenuous to portray this site as having no information that covers aspects of Family life many would consider "positive". If there are particular topics we do not cover (or that you feel we do not cover well enough or objectively), why not suggest changes or write up proposed articles on the topics?

Quote:

I would suggest people look at The Family's official website to find out other activities "The Family" is involved in: http://www.thefamily.org

xFamily contains numerous links to the Family's websites. Here's an example of many such links: xFamily.org: Category:Links

is this site objective?
I agree with you 100% !!

I felt the same way when the Manson family was railroaded and put in a bad light by a very biased public. I mean, they didn't cover ANY of the wonderful things the Manson family accomplished: feeding homeless run away teens, writing wonderful songs (did you know Charlie was a song writer?!), interesting parties etc. All the damned public would focus on is the negative.

Same situation with The Family. Everyone seems to be unfairly focusing on things like The Family's manuals on sexual molestation of children (complete with pictures!), institutionalized prostitution, teen "reeducation" camps that used extensive physical and mental torture, the inordinant rate of drug use, suicides and murders among exmembers, incest and child abuse committed by it's founder and prophet on his own granddaughter, secretive false identites and tax evasion, kidnapping of children and smuggling them to foreign countries while hiding them from parents who left the cult.

Why can't this site be fair? Let's have some stories focusing on the bowles of noodles they gave out.

It says on the xfamily.com site that:

"The position of xFamily.org is neither for nor against The Family, as it is a collaborative work aimed at supporting contributions from diverse individuals. Individuals contributing to this project might have taken up a favorable or unfavorable position on The Family but through peer review we maintain objectivity"

This really is NOT the case with this biased website. Whether people want to accept the reality or not, "The Family' actually does some positive work out in the community and helps alot of disadvantaged people.

I am neither for nor against "The Family" but when a website claims to be objective and claims to neither be for nor against the "The Family" the fact remains that this website is far from objective and is very much against "The Family" and fails to inform readers of all the facts and activities that relate to "The Family."

This behaviour clearly indicates that xfamily.org probably has a hidden agenda and common sense and logic indicates that xfamily.org is not interested in displaying all the facts.

Re: is this site objective?

SwampMidget wrote:

Why can't this site be fair? Let's have some stories focusing on the bowles of noodles they gave out.

SwampMidget, living on the streets is not easy, and sometimes you starve without food and nobody really cares about you; as I've lived on the streets myself before.

If you think helping homeless people is some kind of joke and undeserving of recognition; you really are a heartless person with a warped perception on the world.

Bubbles1 wrote:

This behaviour clearly indicates that xfamily.org probably has a hidden agenda and common sense and logic indicates that xfamily.org is not interested in displaying all the facts.

I'm sure you're familiar with the saying, "You can't please everybody." Even if we posted 1,000 glowing testimonies from the Family and 1,000 articles about the crimes the group's leaders have commited, some people would still accuse us of being biased.

Regardless of what stance we editors take--pro, con or netural--somebody is bound to say we're going about it the wrong way.

But if we are biased, Bubbles1, how do you explain the existence of articles such as these:
Falsely Accused and Jailed in Argentina
Japan Persecution Notices 2005
The Family's response to the June 2005 Rolling Stone article
FAITH DAVID'S REBUTTAL!

These are just a few examples that came readily to mind--there are many more.

Re: is this site objective?
SwampMidget, living on the streets is not easy, and sometimes you starve without food and nobody really cares about you;
-----------------------------------------
Yes. Very ture. That's why I volunteer for my church outreach and donate.

as I've lived on the streets myself before. If you think helping homeless people is some kind of joke and undeserving of recognition; you really are a heartless person with a warped perception on the world.[/quote]
-----------------------------------------
Being homeless is not a joke and that certainly wasn't my point. I think you know that. Either you are being evasive and disengenius, or you're lacking in basic logic.

It IS very dark humor indeed to defend an occultist/child molestor/megalomaniac like Queen Maria (or whatever freaky title/alias she's using lately), with something as weak as your apologetics. My comparison between the Manson family and the Maria/Peter cult holds true. That's what makes it all so absurd; because it's apt. So I'm not writing the sick comedy, you are.

Do you think child pornography is a joke? Do you think incest of between a little girl and her grandfather is a joke? Do you think kidnapping is a joke? Do you think misrepresenting yourself in the name of false charities is a joke?

It's not my intention to hurt or argue with you. If you're involved with this evil organisation, please pray and get clear of it. Jesus will help you and many will aid you in freeing yourself. Your walk is with Jesus, not Queen Maria/King Peter/Prophet Berg. They don't own the monoply on ways to do the Lord's work even if they represent it that way to keep you in bondage.

Look at the filth they've created with their child molesting manuals. A millstone awaits them. Don't follow the blind into the ditch.

God Bless,
Mark

Alot of good things said here.

This forum happens to have alot of negative in it, because alot of negative happened.

There is a reason that a site had to be created like this, and it seems to me that it is so that people who formerly have been silenced and forced to keep their mouth shut have decided to find their voice, and so they are honest about their feelings.

The Family has its own websites that talk about all their good works, and they choose to leave out the horrible things that would scare people away..because that's of course what would happen if they announced that they were founded and are based by a sick disturbed child molester, and that what they preach is not Christian at all..but just some guy who was evil's crazy talk that is sugar coated with a Christian appearing home page and alot of information that disctracts people from actually READING the Family Dossier...all the absurd rules and brain-washing. How would they get donations if they told the truth.

This is where the rest of the story can come out. If the rest of the story was all good..then that's what people would write about. It is obvious that the truth is the tragic opposite.

Re: is this site objective?

Bubbles1 wrote:

SwampMidget, living on the streets is not easy, and sometimes you starve without food and nobody really cares about you; as I've lived on the streets myself before.

If you think helping homeless people is some kind of joke and undeserving of recognition; you really are a heartless person with a warped perception on the world.

Funny you should talk about the hard life of the homeless. I have have first hand experience being a homeless teen (aged 14 thru 17) thanks to being raised in The Family cult and forced to leave with no options of hope.

Quite a number of ex-members were also living rough and on the streets because they weren't good at "litnessing" and had problems begging (Aka,"provisioning").

Such people were not wanted in the family homes (colonies) as they were not bringing in enough finance. These "shamers" were sent out "on the road" where many went hungry and slept outdoors. Even pregnant women!!

It is very hard for a woman who is a virtual baby factory to leave the group knowing that she may lose her children.

Especially when her children have different fathers.

Evanman, my reason for being homeless was quite simply that I was under 18 and unable to enter a legally binding contract without a parent or gaurdian. I was also unemployable because I was under the age of 17 and without a work permit which must be signed by your school principal or county sheriff. The cult put me in a position where my simple goals of getting a job and renting an apartment were unobtainable.

That too, Jack.

TF are still lying about where the funds they collect go. Recently a guy was trying to persuade one of my sons that the donation was for "missionary work in Africa". I know that the funds are sent to headquarters! World Services still operate in Switzerland? Then the funds go into a Swiss bank account.

evanman wrote:

Quite a number of ex-members were also living rough and on the streets because they weren't good at "litnessing" and had problems begging (Aka,"provisioning").

Such people were not wanted in the family homes (colonies) as they were not bringing in enough finance. These "shamers" were sent out "on the road" where many went hungry and slept outdoors. Even pregnant women!!

It is very hard for a woman who is a virtual baby factory to leave the group knowing that she may lose her children.

Especially when her children have different fathers.

I might add, itÂ´s hard for children, even if they somehow get the chance, are at the age where they may be considered adults or legally able to decide their lifestyle for themselves and so desire, to leave the group, among other possible reasons, if they have other brothers and sisters in the group, particularly if theyÂ´re minors. I know of at least one such case, a lovely girl who, she explained to me, left as a teenager, but from that time to the present, as an adult, she longs to see her long-lost brothers and sisters. I think thatÂ´s quite sad. But then, I left TF, didnÂ´t I? I was in it long enough to see a number of other things I thought were sad -- and then I simply said: enough is enough. Bye-bye!

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g300/kshockley_2006/minions.gif

Anonymous wrote:

evanman wrote:
Quite a number of ex-members were also living rough and on the streets because they weren't good at "litnessing" and had problems begging (Aka,"provisioning").

Such people were not wanted in the family homes (colonies) as they were not bringing in enough finance. These "shamers" were sent out "on the road" where many went hungry and slept outdoors. Even pregnant women!!

It is very hard for a woman who is a virtual baby factory to leave the group knowing that she may lose her children.

Especially when her children have different fathers.

I might add, itÂ´s hard for children, even if they somehow get the chance, are at the age where they may be considered adults or legally able to decide their lifestyle for themselves and so desire, to leave the group, among other possible reasons, if they have other brothers and sisters in the group, particularly if theyÂ´re minors. I know of at least one such case, a lovely girl who, she explained to me, left as a teenager, but from that time to the present, as an adult, she longs to see her long-lost brothers and sisters. I think thatÂ´s quite sad. But then, I left TF, didnÂ´t I? I was in it long enough to see a number of other things I thought were sad -- and then I simply said: enough is enough. Bye-bye!

Whoops, sorry, I forgot to log in.
But that "shiners" and "shamers" business, IMO, was shameful in itself. It was a strategy that worked for a time -- and then the "leadership" had to come up with a new angle.

ok but
I find that this site is biased and definitely anti-family.
The admins should just come out and admit that this not an unbiased site that they claim it is because I don't see any positive articles about the Family. It's all negative.
Please stop claiming to be fair and unbiased because I don't buy it.
At least movingon.org has no pretenses about being fair and unbiased. They're as biased as can be but at least they are not claiming to be fair and impartial.

Dear Guest,

Could you point out exactly where you find our site to be biased? For an example, is there a specific article you could refer us to?

Re: ok but

Guest wrote:

I find that this site is biased and definitely anti-family.
The admins should just come out and admit that this not an unbiased site that they claim it is because I don't see any positive articles about the Family. It's all negative.
Please stop claiming to be fair and unbiased because I don't buy it.

Alright, I admit. I am biased.

As a father, I'm biased against people who believe(d) it is morally acceptable for an adult to have sex with a child. I am biased against those who deny a child the right to a proper education. I am biased against anyone who would send a minor out to beg in order to pay the rent.

But those biases are not limited to Family members and certainly don't make me biased against The Family as a whole. In fact, I am biased in their favor when it comes to people's rights to freedom of religion.

As editors, we've offered some of the people who we've written articles about on this site the opportunity to post a rebuttal or submit to us any corrections to the article that they feel should be made.

Since they've declined to do so, we can only assume that what we've written about them is accurate.

Additionally, most of the times we post The Family's publications, it is without comment. If you claim they relfect negatively on the Family, then that doesn't say very much for the content of those publications. Does it?

If you can give us specifics of what you feel is biased, please post it here or contacts us via email. We'll be glad to remove any inaccuracies in our articles.

Guest wrote:

At least movingon.org has no pretenses about being fair and unbiased. They're as biased as can be but at least they are not claiming to be fair and impartial.

Actually, movingon.org has no official or unofficial position on The Family for the simple reason that the opinions voiced there reflect only the views of the site's participants.

In fact, it could well be said that MovingOn's stance is unbiased in that its intended purpose is as a forum for all people who were born and raised in The Family--and that includes current members (http://www.movingon.org/faqs.asp#1).

Are the photos biased?

Are the reprints of CoG/TF publications biased?

Are the audiovisuals biased?

Are the reprints of the artwork biased?

The forum is more reflective of the views of the individuals who post and not always the admins.

Whilst people have their own experiences with CoG/TF we often do disagree . Whilst I have met opposition to a number of my comments I have always been allowed to air them, and I believe that this is an indication of the unbiased nature of the site.

evanman wrote:

Are the photos biased?

Are the reprints of CoG/TF publications biased?

Are the audiovisuals biased?

Are the reprints of the artwork biased?

The forum is more reflective of the views of the individuals who post and not always the admins.

Whilst people have their own experiences with CoG/TF we often do disagree . Whilst I have met opposition to a number of my comments I have always been allowed to air them, and I believe that this is an indication of the unbiased nature of the site.

I joined this forum quite recently, and as a former member of the COG/TF, (71-77), I would be very interested in finding out if "The Family International" has allowed opinions that are not favorable to TF to be posted in any forum on any website of theirs, or if, as was my experience during my time with TF, expressing such opinions was considered to be "giving place to the Enemy". I have visited their website, or one of them, and have indeed seen statements by purported members and friends of the organization in its defense, affirming that negative things said about the Family are false. At most, I have seen what appears to be an admission that in the past "mistakes were made" but "have been corrected". But who propagated the "mistakes"? If the leader of the group, who was proclaimed by all leadership to be "GodÂ´s End-time prophet", wrote letters like "Child Brides", are we then supposed to believe that TF has rejected the word of the man whom they declared was GodÂ´s Prophet? I have yet to see such a public rejection! If that were the case, I should think that it would be logical to see a statement to this effect by David BergÂ´s partner in the last years of his life, Karen Zerby/"Maria". I canÂ´t help but think that there exist inconsistencies here. But maybe IÂ´m not informed enough -- has TF actually stated which "MO letters" they agree with and which they donÂ´t agree with?* Or is it that they agree with everything but everybody else doesnÂ´t know how to interpret them? Be that as it may, I must say, here and now, that I consider our joint decision(my wife and I) to leave TF in 1977 to be one of the best ones we ever made. Not only for ourselves, but for the welfare of our two children, now educated, free-thinking adults.

*Surely the leadership hasnÂ´t denied that letters like "Child Brides" were written and distributed in TF -- or have they?

Claire
You are quite right in your observations in that this site on the whole is not fair to the Church.
People never seem to want to discuss the positive aspects of The Family.
They only want to alienate people from many of the good works done.

xFamily
» General
» Is this site really objective and fair?

Read Topic
Reply

xFamily

Is this site really objective and fair?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know