This is on the Dysfunctional Families thread:

Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:14 pm Post subject: Dave & Cherry to their kids

[welikejesus.com]

And in nearly six months, there has been not one reply.

Says it all, really.

To quote Meatloaf, "two out of three ain't bad." But one out of four? That's gotta say something.

If three out of four of my own children were shunning me, I would be taking a GHLAM.

Quote
private eyes
One of the things I have found interesting in looking at the Jesus Christians is how Dave manages to describe Brian as mentally unstable in an attempt to dismiss him as a critic. Yet what would have happened if he had gone through the trial week? If he had joined, are we to assume his OCD wouldn't have been an issue? I just raise the subject, because when you go through the existing members profiles you see a lot of descriptions of depression, previous drug taking, etc. Even prospective members seem to want to highlight their psychological "issues" openly on the web and yet they are accepted into the fold.

What happens if these people leave and become critics. Will Dave then simply dismiss them as mentally unstable? I think it something existing members need to think about.

Yes, Private Eyes, this is a very good post.

And I agree, there are many on the JC forum who candidly disclose all sorts of mental health or personal issues from their past. I guess they need to be aware that David McKay will suck up to them and tell them how insightful they are when they say they don't like the RR Forum, but if they challenge him he will not hesitate to throw their personal issues back in their faces if they ever try to really challenge David. I see Jezebel is copping this right now for the things she is disclosing.

In fact, I think the respect shown to other posters on THIS forum is a standard which David McKay would do well to begin to emulate on his own forum. We treat Brian with the respect and admiration he deserves and yes, as David himself has stated, we try to help him if we see his OCD is beginning to manifest in his postings. But we NEVER deride him as mentally unstable or any of the other things David says about him. And WE don't even have a common creed or religious affiliation, we are from all sorts of viewpoints!

One of the constant issues in the campaign for the rights of people with mental health issues, is that they are not discriminated against because of them. They have truths they speak when they have balance and clarity, and they need to be accommodated with respect if their issues are imparing them from achieving their life's purpose.

In fact, I think you will find that "Masturbation" is not the "last taboo" as David loves to gleefully proclaim. (And he is the champion Keyboard "let me take this apart line by line, ohhh, I'm getting hard already" Masturbator!) The last taboo is "Mental Health". And it's one David McKay has not even begun to address in his own behaviour. One can only wonder if his own denied/suppressed/shadow mental health issues are his impediment here......

Here is a link to a Victorian (Australia) website on the issue:

[www.humanrightscommission.vic.gov.au]

"Mental health discrimination not on: Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission 08/10/2007

As part of mental health week (October 7-13 ) the Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission today reminded Victorians that it is against the law to discriminate against a person because of their mental illness."

David would do well to consider this also, as he is clearly not up to speed on Human Rights.

I think it's an example of the detractors on the RR Forum showing the Cult Leader how to truly live by the principles Jesus taught us!

And if David ferrets about to find an instance on this forum where someone was rude to Brian as a refute, it would only serve to permanently record him as a Keyboard Masturbator. We're talking about the general mood here!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/2008 07:48PM by Blackhat.

Just checked Lyodspi Kenya's website again. It's definetely still going, as it was when I checked it last and Edward still has LLB after his name.
The list of activities I mentioned still remains and debt collecting still doesn't feature that prominently in relation to any other.

But in fairness to Dave (as he said), he hasn't seen the website. Not good journalism or research on his part, but hey we're used to that.

Appears Dave gets his ideas about debt collectors from thugs who have mistaken him for another Dave McKay.

Perhaps if we could put an appeal out to all the Dave McKay's to start paying their bills. We don't want debt collecting thugs to chase after, "our" Dave. Chances are... if they do, he will either blame it on David Lowe or Brian.

Quoting Cherry:
What I find most frustrating in the debate with Shiela, all the RR'ers and now even Quakers is how they all accuse us of lying when we have caught them out in a lie or inconsistency. Somehow they believe if they shout "liar" loudly enough, they won't have to answer the case before them. That should be easy to spot. Right? But it seems to take either a spiritual giant or a spiritually naive but totally sincere person to be able to do so. Amazing!

And which one are you Cherry? Spiritually naive, or spiritual giant? A bit of an oxymoron referring to yourself as a spiritual giant don't you think? Not much humility there, i.e. "hey everybody look at me, I'm a spiritual giant". Are you saying YOU are naive? Somehow I don't think so. It seems to me that such comments are just a clever put down of Joanne, and way of boasting about yourself.

It is interesting that both Dave and Lisa fail to see that identifying someone as a "junkie" IS derogatory. Practically any person recovering from a drug addiction will tell you as much. To them it is a label which identifies them as the lowest of the low, conjuring up stereotypical negative images. Lisa should take a trip down to her local Methadone drug replacement facility and ask them if they are happy being called a "junkie". I am afraid that this is another instance where ignorance of the facts is being revealed.

Ross, you sound so angry these days. How are those anger management classes coming along? It may be advisable for you to bow out of the current discussions for a time as it seems to be upsetting to you. Did you find it frustrating when Dave told you that your comments about a poster here being a "lazy selfish hippy" was unneccessary because HE had already said as much? It must be frustrating to you when you see Dave repeating comments that others have said, and no one pulling him up by saying that his comments are unneccessary because someone else already said it.

I also have to state for the record, as an exmember of the JC's, that I NEVER saw or heard of any form of sexual abuse being visited upon any children under JC community care. I cannot support such allegations. Such allegations I think have stemmed from me disagreeing strongly with Dave's assertion that there is no force involved in paedophilia, and that it is only wrong because "society" says so. This is a comment he made whilst in a discussion about the topic of coercion. It is a case of "chinese whispers" taking place to now warn people about children being sexually abused in their community. The term "spiritual paedophile" has been bandied around, as a way of describing the action Dave has taken by covertly meeting with minors whilst in recruiting mode (i.e. those under the age of 18). Let's be accurate with what we say regarding Dave and his community because it is these types of inaccuracies that enable his persecution mindset because those within his community know full well, as do any ex members, that it has NEVER been a concern or fear that children are in danger of being sexually abused within the Jesus Christians.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2008 04:55AM by apostate.

Apostate said he never saw evidence that Jesus Christians were involved in sexual abuse of children. I'm glad to hear that and for the record I was making no allegations that any JC members were pedophiles. However, I'm still extremely concerned that there are a number of children involved with the JCs. There are two main reasons for my concern:

1. The link between the JCs and the Children of God.

2. The UK case where a runaway schoolboy (Bobby Kelly - Google his name if you want to check the details) was found in a tent with two male JCs, who were promptly arrested.

I do wonder whether, at the very least, police and social services should be asked to investigate any instances where children are involved with the JCs, if only to be on the safe side.

Check this out, from "Over concerned mother":

[welikejesus.com]

This is the "over sensitive mother" writing:


The member in question, let's call him "X", molested his girlfriend’s two daughters while living with them and their mother. I am not sure of his exact age at that time, he was at least 21, and he was a sexually active adult. When I was a JC member, I spent a lot of time with "X". He often went on outreach with me and my son.One time, I was on outreach with "X" , and another member named Monty. "X" had confessed to Monty that he had molested these two girls. Monty asked "X" to confess to me about two girls. The reasons that Monty had asked him to confess to me was that "X" was being extremely affectionate with my son .Monty was concerned enough that he fasted for 3 days before confronting "X" and asking him to tell me. Anyhow, at Monty's insistance, "X" confessed, and I got very upset and asked that we go right back to the base. Dave and Cherry were in town and I wanted them to know.

We talked about things with Dave and Cherry back at base. In the manner typical of pedophiles, "X" said that he hadn’t hurt the girls and had just wanted to make them feel good. He also said that he had molested them while they were sleeping. (At the time it sounded like it had only happened once but in later discussion he admitted to inappropriately touching them more than once.)

In the discussion, Cherry was very helpful, she jumped on "X"s comments about making the girls feel good and told him that was NOT right or acceptable. Dave’s attitude wasn’t what I expected it to be. He felt that Monty, Cherry and I were over reacting. He also said that he didn’t think Monty should have asked "X" to confess to me. A few people had noticed that "X"'s behaviour towards my son was inappropriate. Cherry even said that even though nothing serious had happened yet...she felt that things were heading that way.

This all occurred just a short time before I was scheduled to leave my children at the base and go to help someone who was donating a kidney. I was concerned about "X" being there with my children when I was out of town. So, "X" was asked to leave the base for the whole time that I was away. I am not sure that I would have been afforded this consideration if Cherry wouldn't have been there. I'm pretty sure it was her idea that he leave while I was away.

Dave mentioned in his post, leader's who were discussing the issue. Well, I was the leader in the US base at that time. I was not only involved but I instigated the discussions.The discussions that I was party to were more to do with the issue of me being "overly protective" of my children, though. I think a few emails went back and forth between Dave and "X" as some sort of "counseling". It was also suggested, I think by Cherry, that "X" play with the dog more instead of being affectionate with my son. I am not aware of any other "therapy" being offered to "X".

Also, within weeks of the problem coming to light, Dave insisted that my son move out of the "family" bedroom that we had and into one of the "guys" rooms. I didn't want my son, who was 6 at the time, to sleep in a room with grown men. Especially after finding out about "X"'s past. Dave, in his usual manner, pushed and pushed on the subject. I even left the community with my kids for a couple of days, without permission, because I was so upset. This particular grievance ended up being "witnessed' by two women who had been in the group a long time. They tried to be sensitive, but in the end agreed with Dave that I was just being overly protective and my son should sleep in a room with the guys. I remember one of them saying, about the incident with "X" and the girls, that they probably weren't damaged seeing as they were sleeping.

It is clear to me from the above post, as well as others on this site, that Dave continues to be a hypocritical liar! He knows what happened and yet wants to belittle me and label me an "over sensitive" mother. I make no apologies. Parents are meant to protect their children. I'll go ahead and admit it now... I feed and clothe them too.

BTW, I have talked with my children and it seems that nothing of a sexual nature happened to them in the group.Thank God! In my mind, this does not excuse Dave's lack of concern for children inside and outside of the group.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2008 08:30AM by zeuszor.

Surprise, surprise, Dave is calling me a lying hypocrite for saying:

"Such allegations I think have stemmed from me disagreeing strongly with Dave's assertion that there is no force involved in paedophilia, and that it is only wrong because "society" says so."

What Dave actually said:
"But a better example is paedophilia. Kids are not FORCED to have sex, and yet society says it is wrong. I know, I know, they are not adults. But you see, we each have our restrictions that we think makes it wrong or doesn't make it wrong."

Which sounds an awful lot like he is saying there is no force involved in paedophilia and that it is only wrong because society says so!

Dave went on to say "And so what we decided to experiment with is just trying to follow the rules as we honestly and humbly think God wrote them."

So the JC's "experiment" with following rules they "think" God wrote...? (sounds a bit subjective and personal) as opposed to society which justifies its laws rationally when they say paedophilia is a crime because children are not adults capable of providing informed consent and are harmed when adult predators use that advantage to coerce them into having sex.

If what Dave writes is confusing and suggests he is saying something he doesn't intend to say he needs to accept responsibility for that instead of accusing me of lying, especially when I did him the courtesy of defending him from the speculation that this waffle he produced means that children might be at risk of sexual molestation within the community.

Zeuszor, this is extremely important and disturbing.

I don't know the JC's position on underage sex, or the truth behind any allegations of pedophilia in this group, but this reinforces my view that the police and/or social services in Australia, the UK and anywhere else the JCs are active should at least be asked to look into this. Does anyone on this forum know the names of any JCs with custody of kids and if so, can you take this forward?

The JCs may be entirely innocent here, but given the Children of God connection, is this an assumption we can afford to make, when the safety of kids is at stake?

Also, thanks to Blackhat and Eyes for raising the point of DM's hypocrisy on the mental health issue. I had not considered that inconsistency.

A lot of people are judgmental when you tell them that you take Prozac, and a lot of people still think that only crazy people take it.

Nobody here has ever treated me with anything but respect.

I consider my OCD an asset, a blessing, just as much as it can be a liability. It allows me to plainly see things that others cannot at times see. The converse is also true, however: sometimes I cannot see the forest for all of the trees, get caught up in the details of things, you know? I have learned to work with it, the obsessiveness, and cope relatively well.

My extreme, acute (some say neurotic) sense of situational awareness is what made my gut flip when I met the JCs in that apartment in Dallas. I call it my "Spidey-sense." I am very sensitive to other people's "vibes."

Thanks again. It is good to know that I am appreciated.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2008 08:55AM by zeuszor.