I am far from certain I have been given full frank information by The Family. In his first affidavit SPM says that "In 1985 a directive was sent out to all the homes world-wide reminding everybody that sex between adults and children was strictly forbidden and that this included sex between teenagers and adults." He exhibited "Child Abuse?! An Official Statement from the Founders of the Children of God" which began with a quote from Moses David dated December 1988 :
"We do not approved with sex with minors, and hereby renounce any writings of anyone in our family which may seem to do so! We absolutely forbid it!"
The article stated:-
"In order to try to substantiate these absolutely false charges against us (of sex between adults and minors and adults and young children) some of our opponents have begun reproducing and distributing an article which was published within our group over 10 years ago. Although the article in question does make reference to an unusually loving relationship between the young woman who wrote it and the child she was caring for, even a quick glance makes it clear that the article is only the writer's account of her own personal experience and opinions. And it is by no means any kind of policy setting or instructional text. Such intimate relationships between minors and adults have never been officially encouraged or condoned within our fellowship and it was a very unfortunate oversight and mistake on our part 10 years ago to have allowed such an article to be published. Since then we have expressly forbidden and condemned any such conduct among our members."
That article was clearly "My Little Fish." I have already sufficiently demonstrated that this attempt to lay all the blame on Sara and none on the leadership is dishonest. The article continued:-
"In early 1985 "(my emphasis)" when it was called to our attention that some questions had arisen concerning sex between adults and minors, we issued an urgent directive to all of our communities world wide. In this missive, all of our members were strongly reminded that any such activities are strictly forbidden within our group. The following excerpts are taken verbatim" (again my emphasis)" from this directive:-
"For the record we want to say that we do not agree with adults having sex with children! The Family should just not do it. And even though teen sex with adults may be tolerated in some countries, we are against it. Nudity and sex can be wonderful and beautiful and we have a good godly healthy attitude regarding it, but adults must refrain from practising it with minors! The best thing we can do is just not do it at all. Adults should refrain from any sexual involvement with under-aged minors!"
These are direct quotations from an internal memorandum which was issued to all of our communities over 3 years ago. "( I stress the fact that if issued 3 years earlier, then it was issued before 1985.)
The Official Solicitor called for sight of that internal memorandum. It has not been forthcoming. I have to wonder why not. My concern is also roused because a slightly different version of the same document was quoted by The Family in April 1992, in their document issued by World Services entitled "Our Replies to Allegations of Child Abuse". That again gave the date of the internal memorandum as being 1985. An explanation is given that:
"When rumours began to surface that some members were possibly having sexual contact with adolescents, action was taken to clearly explain to all members that not only was such conduct not condoned but strictly forbidden".
No particulars were given of the date or substance of those rumours. In this version of the memorandum, the reference was to adults having "sexual contact" with children which may be different from and so less serious than adults having "sex" with children. It acknowledged teen sex with adults was not tolerated "as its fruit is more bad than good." It contained this revealing passage:-
"Although Dad (Father David) has written about teens, and even younger children's sexual interests, these interests can be satisfied by a natural and open attitude with others of their own age. Also, it should be emphasised to our teens and children that they need do nothing against their will. They can always say, "No!" Young folks being affectionate with each other is natural and healthy, as long as they are not hurting each other; but let's keep it within the confines of their own age. Let's set the record straight here and now that youth with youth and teen with teen is the normal, natural type of loving affection that we and even society would expect."
The statement then acknowledged that:-
"Since 1985, even the above quoted degree of liberality described above regarding children and adolescents being sexually affectionate among themselves has been discouraged in our communities."
It is pertinent to note from that statement how inappropriately The Family shift the responsibility from the abusing adult and place it not just on the teens but also on the children, i.e. those below 13. They are the ones expected to have to say "No" to prevent advantage being taken of them against their will.
Yet another version is given in "The History of the Sexual Policies of The Family" dated November 1993, upon which SPM relies to answer the Official Solicitor's interrogatories. This document refers not to rumours circulating in 1985 but to a questionnaire given to the teens who attended the Mexican Teen Training Camp in 1986. Some of the questions enquired about their boy/girl relationships, and asked if they had any questions or wanted to make any comments regarding sexual matters. Of the approximately 110 teens in attendance, 10 of them wrote they had experienced some form of sexual contact with adults. Of these 10 3 girls aged 15 and 16 had experienced sexual intercourse. In all three cases their mothers had separated from the girls fathers had remarried and the sexual relationship occurred with their step-fathers. Those reports were forwarded by Gary and Faithy to Father David's household and Maria instructed Sara (who was responsible for Family childcare publications at the time) immediately to write an internal memorandum to the entire Family categorically forbidding all sexual contact of any sort between adults and minors. This memorandum, entitled "Liberty or Stumbling Block", clearly defined the policy regarding sex between adults and minors.
"Prior to this memorandum the need for a policy had not been appreciated as it was not realised that such a problem existed. However as soon as reports reached Father David and Maria that sexual relationship between adults and minors had occurred, a clear rule was imposed in which any such relationship were unequivocally forbidden. This rule has remained intact and has been enforced ever since".
I have to ask whether the internal memorandum of 1985 compiled after rumours had began to surface is the same as Sara's memorandum, "Liberty or Stumbling Block" written in 1986 as a response to the TTC questionnaire. Neither have been produced. Their importance is self-evident. I do not believe that they do not exist. I am driven to find that The Family have not been frank with me and I am bound therefore to be suspicious that the internal records of this highly organised computerised group contain information they wish to withhold from the court. These records were, after all, available in November 1993 two months before the trial began. It would have been important to see whether it contained any acknowledgement of responsibility, though I doubt it, or any apology to those who had been victimised, which again I doubt, or any offer of help which is altogether too much to expect.
I have already referred to an undated document "Questions You Always Wanted to Ask" which referred to the fact that a question and answer session held "at recent TTC". I assume that to be the 1986 TTC. I see the document Teen Graduation which follows that article is dated September 1986. Apart from a question as to the ability of "older teens" getting "mated with an adult man", the answer to which is not very informative, there is nothing at all by way of general guidance to the other teens in The Family who did not have the benefit of going to Mexico. Why was this opportunity not taken to put them in the picture?
In May 1987 there was the publication "Good Thots". It contained someone's good thoughts on sex. Despite the apparent repudiation the year or two years previously, this reported:
"An idea that is becoming more popular among doctors etc. is that young children should be allowed and perhaps encouraged to conduct a full sex life without interference from parents. According to the argument children are sexual beings who need to develop skills early in life. Mary Calderone, head of the Influential Sex Information and Education of Council of the US says that "the child has a fundamental right to know....sexuality and to be sexual. Sexologists consider Freud's latency - a time of low sexual interest from about age 4 to puberty - to be misimposed by British society. They pointed out that the boy's sexual system beginning early - infant boys have erections and the vaginas in infant girls lubricate....Many researchers maintain that adult child sex is basically harmless to the child. Psychologist Douglas Powell of Harvard Health Service says "I have not seen anyone harmed by adult child sex so long as it occurs in a relationship with someone who really cares about the them."
This is an extraordinary bit of exculpation. Despite the literature purge, it remains current literature for The Family's consumption.
I have already referred to the "Child Abuse Official Statement" published in March 1989. That referred to:
"A written statement by the founding father of our group when he was recently asked what our official stance was regarding any of our past publications that purportedly condoned adults having sex of any kind with minors. "We do not approve of sex with minors, and we hereby renounce any writings of any one in our Family which may seek to do so."
I have not seen that written statement. It would appear from the quotation to have been issued in December 1988. Peter Amsterdam wrote to me to point out that the statement of renunciation was intended to include Berg's own writing among those which were capable of repudiation. It is a pity Berg himself did not make that clear. It is a greater pity he did not renounce the many statements, such as those identified in this judgment, of most of which he was the author, which, as I have demonstrated, cannot be construed otherwise than as conniving adults having sexual contact with minor's. The only document referred to in the "Child Abuse Official Statement" is Sara's "My Little Fish" published by "very unfortunate oversight". I reject that statement.
In June 1989 Maria wrote "Child Abuse: A Final Warning". In it she said:-
"Parents - or any other adults for that matter - certainly do not have sex with children! Or under aged teens! For example, no matter how much a man may feel drawn to a sexy teen girl, and love her and want to get intimately involved with her, it's simply not wise. They don't have to, and they had better refrain from it. To have any kind of affair or sexual relationship with a minor is just about the most dangerous thing any of our adults could do. And it's not even necessary! There's no need or legitimate reason for it! In fact nothing is necessary if it's going to hurt the Lord's work! And anybody who does it is in serious trouble, not only with the world but with us!...So if we hear of any who violate these rules, we're going to immediately excommunicate them...It's been researched and proven by experts that in almost every case where an adult got involved with a teen, the relationship fails simply because there are too many differences of interests, teens who have had such involvement with adults have almost unanimously manifested a very negative, regretful or remorseful reaction to such experiences. So I definitely think it's far better that our adults completely avoid such involvements with minors!"
That is a determined attempt to stamp out the practice which I highlight because it deserves as much even double the emphasis as I have given to the objectionable passages. It has to be applauded. It contains some acknowledgement of the harm these sexual contacts cause the teenagers. The letter might have taken the opportunity to stress just how much such actions hurt not only the Lord's work but the children. It might have made more plain that such actions were not only "simply not wise" but also categorically wrong. The letter is addressed to disciples and friends. It is a shame no letter was written to the teenagers offering them help, advice and apology.
In October 1989 Maria published "Flirty Little Teens Beware". This was to be read "unitedly" by adults and teens. It referred to:
"Some teen girls play on sexual angles to try to get the men's attention. That's all a lot of them want, attention, but it can easily be misinterpreted by the men as meaning something else. So you may need to take a definite stand in your own hearts and minds that you're not going to be swayed by anything that some young teen girl may do to interest or even entice you. .... And likewise you adult women had better not get involved with under age boys! There is nothing wrong with fighting against giving in to sexual desires if in some particular situation they are wrong. Let's face it, sex is not something that's always good, clear across the board. Just because we promote sex and believe God made it and that it's his wonderful creation doesn't mean that it's always good under every circumstance."
That is good sound advice. She continued:-
"In most cases our teen girls have been fairly innocent. They have probably seen their mothers and aunts and uncles and everyone show lots of love and affection to others, so they've just figured, "Well this is what we're supposed to do!"
This was a tacit admission that the heavily sexualized ethos of Family life as I have set out in this judgment, contributed to the corruption of innocent children. Maria gave the girls a warning:-
"So when you're trying to get him involved and you're trying to make eyes at him and tease him and play up to him and rub up against him and kiss him and everything else whatever your motivation may be, he is the one who is going to really suffer for it. ... I think in some cases the teen girls provoke it even more than the men! (Fam: Our teen girls definitely need to hear this message because some of them really do initiate it. The little pre-teen girls usually don't know what they are provoking, they're more uninformed and inexperienced. But most of the teens are very much aware of what they are doing, although they don't really fully understand the consequences.) Yes, after hearing all about our former FFing and everything, they probably want to try the same thing. Well our people are already FFed and they are in The Family, so our young girls certainly don't need to try and FF them, it's very dangerous for them to do so".
Again this appears to me to be a tacit acknowledgement that Family practices have contributed to the harm suffered.
There was a further grudging acknowledgement in this passage:-
"This is the very thing the system would like to use against us - sex with minors which they always term child abuse although in our loving Family there would be very little possibility of genuine abuse, and if there has been any, hopefully we've now gotten rid of the problem completely. Most of our teens are no naive they don't even understand why someone would deserve to be excommunicated for a thing like this." (My emphasis.)
I observe that in the "Loving Family" it would not be "genuine abuse." This a worrying disingenuous statement based upon the totally flawed belief that if done in love in accordance with the Law of Love, sex with minors (child abuse) is not capable of being abusive.
In June 1990 The Family published "Don't be Ignorant of the Devil's Devices". This letter was written to help The Family the better to "inform your children" about the false child abuse accusations that were currently being stirred up against The Family in many countries. It contained a "special notice to Family teens" written by W.S staff at Maria's request. This is an important document. I quote from it:-
"Mama recently expressed concern for you teens that when you read how strongly we are condemning any sort of intimate relationships between adults and minors, some of you may have some questions. Some of you could even possibly wonder, "Oh my! I remember a few years ago when Uncle so-an-so and I cuddled and had fun together, was that sex abuse?"
This again seems to me to be an acknowledgement that a few years previously Uncles did cuddle and have fun - which is an undisguised euphemism for sexual contact - with young girls. There is a further tacit acknowledgement in the following passage:-
"But we are sure you are probably aware of the fact that there can be a very strong natural attraction between men and blossoming teen girls and in the past, before our hypocritical enemies started slinging all their child abuse accusations at us, we enjoyed certain God given liberties and that natural attraction occasionally did lead to some involvement and affection shown between some of our adult men and teen girls and the same thing occasionally took place between some teen boys and adult women." (My emphasis.)
World Services are not referring here to the ten children who made confession at the 1986 Mexico TTC. World Services knew full well that the problem was much more widespread than that. The notice continued:-
"So if you happen to be a teen who happened to have any kind of involvement or experience along these lines, we wanted to encourage you that you do not need to feel condemned, guilty, ashamed or confused. When you read in the letters how any and all such activities are now strictly forbidden and that anyone who engages in them will be excommunicated, you don't need to go to extremes and start getting worried about your health and your past. You'd be much better off if you just trust the Lord and believe that your past is all in His hands and leave it there!"
The psychiatric evidence I have heard expresses the view, with which I agree, that rather than suppress these horrors, they should be brought out into the open, fully and frankly acknowledged, and then dealt with, with skilled therapeutic help if necessary. Prayer may well be a help but Maria's advice to bury the past and pretend it did not happen is wrong and unacceptable.
The virtue of the Law of Love is then extolled because whatever is done in love is acceptable in the eyes of God. Expediency and the System "making such a big stink and getting so freaked out and infuriated about anything they even suspect may be child sex abuse", forced the complete forbidding of any and all such relationships. Then followed another tacit admission and another exculpation:-
"That's not to say that any intimacies or loving relationships that may have taken place in the past were necessarily all wrong, wicked, sinful or of the devil! That is simply not the case."
There followed this important passage:-
"But you don't know my story," some teens may say. "It wasn't very intimate or loving - I feel like I was "abused" or at least "used" by so-an-so!" Well, if you were actually mistreated or hurt in any way, we're certainly very sorry about that(my emphasis) - "and we're sure that whoever was involved with you is sorry as well. Let's not forget, we all make mistakes and we know that there have been adults and teens who simply didn't realise how much they were "playing with fire" when they may have gotten involved in a playful experimental or crush type of relationship in the past. And sometimes before they knew it, things got more serious or went further than either of them had originally anticipated. If this was the case with you, you need to realise that you don't have to look back on that experience as a horrible mistake of some kind or that the person you were with was some sort of dirty old man or monster! All of us have learnt a lot of lessons over the past few years, and we've realised that adult teen relationships should not only be avoided because they cause trouble with the system, but they are also very difficult for either party to handle emotionally, it's easy for people to have their feelings hurt, and the people involved often become distracted in their work for the Lord etc etc., which are all reasons why we have expressly forbidden any such relationships. We live and we learn!"
That passage is important because it contains what seems to me to be the first apology to the hurt children. It is a step in the right direction. But acknowledgement of responsibility is still woefully lacking. The mistakes that seem to be acknowledged to have been made were the mistakes of those who played with fire. There was no acknowledgement of any mistake made by Berg or in any of the literature, still less was there any admission of responsibility. On the contrary, the notice informed the teens that:-
"You can be very thankful for the honest, open and loving attitude towards sex that Grandpa had taught us in the letters."
At least WS acknowledge learning a lesson in realising that adult/teen relationships have to be avoided not only because of trouble with the system but because of their own inherent, harmful consequences. It is an admission of some of the truth, but not the whole of the truth.
In November 1991 the Good News published "Questions and Answers on Sex, Freedoms and Relationships." When The Family asked why things were so much more restricted than they were when The Family used to be a lot freer sexually, the answer was because many within The Family missed the freedom -
"A lot of us found ourselves caught in a maelstrom of romantic and sexual feelings, emotions and relationships that were very overpowering and could virtually control us because we let them occupy so much of our minds and hearts and time. This of course resulted in quite a few serious problems causing our work and fruitfulness for the Lord to suffer greatly."
The Family then had the honesty to ask the next question.
"If it resulted in all kinds of problems, then all of that sexual freedom must have been wrong."
Answer:-
"There was - and is - absolutely nothing wrong with the freedoms that the Lord gave us. The Lord showed Grandpa that the scripture, "All things are lawful unto us", literally means exactly what it says; that there are no exceptions, all things indeed are lawful for believers in Jesus who are motivated by love...the problems resulted because a lot of us abused these freedoms and began looking on them as a means to gratify our own fleshly lusts instead of using them to sacrificially and lovingly help others."
The Family continued the cross examination, no doubt with the same sense of futility as may have been experienced by the grandmother and Official Solicitor. The next question, and it is a very good question, was:-
"If Grandpa knew that The Family would probably have as much trouble handling such freedoms as the early church did, then why did he ever promote it?"
"Answer:
The Lord used it to test us and teach us many lessons that we would never have learned otherwise".
I see no hint of any acknowledgement on the part of the leadership that they, or their leader Berg, were even partly responsible for some at least of the harm which they knew was bound to have arisen. Nor is there in that document a sniff of contrition or sympathy.
In 1992, partly as a result of proceedings in Australia and in this Court, The Family published their "Beliefs and Teaching regarding Sex" and their "Replies to Allegations of Child Abuse. This was a guarded document with guarded concessions, for example:
"So although a number of articles that were written several years ago could be construed as seeming to condone some rather questionable practices concerning under age minors and sex, such things never in any way became an official policy....nor did the majority of our membership of that time ever have sexual involvement with a minor whatsoever."
One notes the concession made in respect of "a number of articles", which is an advance on just "My Little Fish". The authors must have had in mind Berg's other writings than those referring to putting a young male child to sleep by fondling his penis, because they referred to his also having "broached the subject of whether each and every sexual contact between an adult and minor was in fact necessarily harmful". He did more than broach the subject. He promoted it. They "regret that some speculative views were published in which the massaging or fondling of a young child by the mother or nanny was discussed as a means of relaxing or putting the child to sleep." In their conclusion they acknowledged:
"that some mistakes were made in the past but we also believe we have done our best to correct them and to put stringent measures in place to prevent them from happening again".
Importantly, World Services were able to say:
"To anyone who may have been abused in any way in the past by a member of one of our communities, we sincerely apologise. It was never our intent that anyone especially children should ever be hurt, and we hope that you are assured by the above mentioned safeguards now in place, that today no abuse of children is tolerated in our fellowship."
Such glimmers of hope as I might derive from that public statement is badly dented by the three letters written in December 1992 in response to a message Berg received from a church leader who was advising The Family to modify their stance regarding sexual freedoms in order to become more acceptable to the system. The letters are "Why Do Ye Stone Us?", "We can't Recant the Truth", and "There's No Way Out but Up," collected in GN 554 and published in July 1993. The general tone of these letters is a strident re-affirmation of policy, a stark challenge to the system and a depressing call to the membership to:
"help us fight. God will support you! You want to be a winner and die for Jesus? Join us. It's gonna be thrilling!"
It makes the most depressing reading especially if I am to take the following as the true position of the leadership today:-
"So what else can we expect from the law, man's laws, but to be contrary to the laws of God! What else can we expect but persecution, incarceration and some day even death. So there's no reconciliation, it's impossible! Some of our friends have even suggested that we modify our scriptural belief in the freedom granted to us under the Law of Love, to come out and deny it or change it or admit that it was wrong. But how are we going to do that?"
The letter concluded with a chilling passage:-
"What else can we do?....All we can do is stand up, and go up! There's no way out but up! Death is our only hope..."
The words are chilling because the Jonestown suicides, the Waco Siege and the even more recent cult killings in Switzerland and Canada and the poison gas attacks in Japan are all vivid reminders of the terrifying power certain religious leaders have to lead their members to death. I wish, however, to record the clear finding, from which I will not shrink, that there was no evidence that this mother or anyone close to her at the Ward's home are likely to join in any mass suicide, even if, which I also find unlikely, World Services called on The Family to die. I dismiss those fears.
The Family held a summit meeting sometime towards the end of 1992 though I think in the literature it is called the "Summit 1993" meeting. It was led by Peter Amsterdam and Gary and attended by the CRO teamworks. I have been provided with Part I of the summary of Summit '93 (GN539) which refers to the intention to address the Law of Love in a summary of "Summit '93 Part II." I have not seen that document. This letter "Our Beliefs Concerning the Lord's Law of Love" GN558 (July 93) may be the document referred to. It was realised by The Family that the adults and young people needed clarification about the leadership's stance concerning the Law of Love and the leadership needed also to come to a decision concerning "how to explain to the public or a Court of law our beliefs in the Law of Love and the experience some have had in the past as a result." I assume that the presentation to the Court is contained in the History compiled in November 1993, some 110 pages of which are set out in answer to the Official Solicitor's Interrogatories. As mentioned, I also have GN555 "Our beliefs concerning the Lords law of Love", published in July 1993 for The Family's consumption. It is therefore, an important document. The letter sets out an analysis of the principles of the Law of Love and concludes "it was good and overall it bore good fruit." The letter does, however, make some acknowledgement that because some were not as mature and loving and yielding to the Lord as they should have been, there were some problems and some mistakes. They acknowledged:-
"We realise that there were some instances in which some individuals did not always strictly follow the principles and guidelines of the Law of Love and in some cases some of these liberties unfortunately were used as an occasion of the flesh. If any of you were personally guilty of any unloving acts, we trust you have sincerely asked the Lord to forgive you....If you haven't already, we're sure you'd also want to ask anyone you have offended to forgive you, providing they are in your home or nearly in your area and you are able to verbally apologize to them. We do not recommend that you write to others about things of this nature. We are truly sorry if any of our members were hurt or offended in any way by someone who misapplied or in some way strayed from the strict guidelines of the Law of Love".
This is again an acknowledgement of the existence of the child abuse problem and I am quite certain that The Family know more about it than they have been prepared to reveal. That was why nothing should be put in writing.
Maria commented:
"I'd just hate to have our Family members acting as though Dad was wrong when we know that is not the case. If there was anything wrong it was that some Family members may have gotten into some excesses and taken things to the extreme in some cases, using such liberties as an occasion for the flesh".
For Maria the problem was that:-
"If we sit back and let Dad take all the "blame" for all our controversial Biblical doctrines that the system doesn't like and criticise like our sexual openness and our sexual freedom among ourselves...and many other radical doctrines that have made us what we are, then aren't we in a sense both denying Dad and the Word itself".
The tenor of the letter is not to compromise, and not to blame Berg, not to blame the Law of Love for the acknowledged excesses of the flesh. I find that attitude extremely worrying. It is neither an acceptable nor a responsible position to take.
