Dave McKay (former ''Shepherd'' of the notorious ''Children of God'') for the past 48 hrs has been busy concocting his ''defense'' regarding the paedophilia case. He's made a huge post but i have managed to cut it down and highlight the main issues. The full version can be viewed on the JCs forum.

I must warn people that there are some disturbing details in the following quotes.

Dave McKay wrote:

Quote

July, 2003?
Cherry and I officiated at a wedding between Paul and Ulrike, in August, 2003, in London. We are not sure whether we stopped in L.A. on the way to London or on the way back. Circumstances suggest that it must have been on our way TO London. Nevertheless, while we were there at the house in Compton, the matter of X's past actions came to light. This is the all-important grievance meeting involving "X", "A", Alf, Cherry and me, for which I am being so unfairly judged now.

At some point prior to the actual meeting, X had confided to Alf that, when he was 19 or 20, he had been playing with his girlfriend's ten year old daughter, when he touched her crotch through her clothes. He said that he had also inappropriately touched her five year old sister while she was sleeping. 'X' confided that he had been plagued with guilt about it and that he had written to the girls' mother to confess what had happened. She was understandably quite angry and said so, but took no further action.

What transpired in that meeting has already been covered elsewhere. We decided on strict rules about X not having any physical contact with the children, and that, if he felt like wrestling or cuddling then it should be with the pet dog which the community owned at that time. X accepted, and things moved steadily toward more and more normality after that.

December, 2003.
What happened after A returned from Minnesota is of the greatest significance to this whole discussion. What Cherry and I are doing is suggesting that a totally voluntary confession from X, and genuine guilt expressed in relation to a very brief period of time (two incidents involving two sisters) that had occurred years earlier, and subsequent attempts to make restitution to the girls' mother for what happened does not constitute proof of paedophilia in our minds. (I understand that definitions vary, and so some may want to refer to this as paedophilia, but if they do, then they are going to have to accept that it is curable... something that most experts say is not true, and certainly not something that the hate-mongers on the hate sites are saying is possible.) But let "Over-protective mother" herself have the last word on this. All indications were that by December, 2003, she had become fully convinced that whatever X had confessed to was NOT evidence of a threat to her children. She had become quite relaxed with X being a part of the team, and I think she even made him her second-in-charge. Even years after she left, when she decided to make public what happened in the 1990s and what was reported of it in 2003, she still concluded by saying that there had been nothing sexually inappropriate that happened between X and her children during all the time that X had lived and/or worked with her and her children.

He was not kicked out. He was not reported to the police. He was not sent for counselling

I am astounded that Dave is still defiantly dismissing the seriousness of this. He even describes in detail the abuse which took place yet he's still trying to downplay it.

He is still claming this man should not have been treated as a paedophilie despite his disturbing confessions. It's another case of Dave Mckay placing himself above the law.

A man who admitted to molesting a 10 year old and a 5 year old is not a paedophile? AM I HEARING THIS RIGHT??????

I CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT I'M READING. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY HORRIFIC AND HAS TO BE INVESTIGATED FURTHER BY THE AUTHORITIES.

The information Dave McKay had should have been reported to the police immediately. He was the leader of the group. He was the decision maker. It was his responsibility. So much trust should not been given to this child molester.

More questions need to be answered. The most important ones for me being...

WAS THIS MAN TRUSTED TO WORK ALONGSIDE VULNERABLE CHILDREN IN KENYA?

WAS THIS MAN STILL WORKING IN KENYA AS RECENTLY AS THIS YEAR, 7 YEARS AFTER HIS DISTURBING CONFESSION?

He confirms absolutely no action was taken against this man and blames that on the mother. It's always someone else's fault with McKay. The mother was under Dave's control at the time. Dave McKay was the leader of the cult. It was his responsobility to take such action.

Dave claims that Xenophone and the ''over concerned mother'' appear to have changed their story. I don't know if they have or haven't but what i do know is whilst in the cult McKay teaches his victims/followers to lie, deny and deflect. That is the McKay way. They were being controlled by Dave McKay. It can take many years to get out of the cult mindset. This is what McKay ''fails to grasp'' and tries to use to his advantage.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2010 10:28AM by Apollo.

Quote
Blackhat
It's easy to fall into Dave's traps. He set one this morning.

Following Xenophone's concise testimony on the XJC site, Dave tried to divert attention from the damning evidence of Xenophone.

He posted a link to a 2 year old news report about kidney donations, to try to get us off the current subject. Only Stoic fell for it.

While I have defended Dave regarding active child abuse, I have to say that this is a case which may need further investigation by the law. I don't know, but it seems very suspect to me. That is my opinion. The only reason that I can think for it is that Dave might have wanted control over the person who confessed to abusing the two girls, and also control over the mother who he described as over protective, and control over the child involved. All reasons are not acceptable.

Recenty the Catholic Church has come under pressure to re-describe how it handles reports of child sex abuse. To me that would be the bottom line for Dave McKay as well

Regardless of confidences, pragmatic considerations, and power structures, this matter has to be addressed by current best practices.

This might mean that Dave has to admit that he failed in his duty of care regarding the case described by Xenophone.

Dave has posted an extensive time-line of the events relating to what Xenophone reported. In this scenario, there is nothing to be answered for by Dave, and it really should be the end of the matter, particularly if the matter was eventually reported to the police by the person concerned.

No, Apollo, NOT every young man who touches a girl inappropriately during some weird part of late adolescence (what DOES go on in their minds?) is a paedophile.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2010 10:40AM by Blackhat.

Quote
Blackhat

Quote
Blackhat
It's easy to fall into Dave's traps. He set one this morning.

Following Xenophone's concise testimony on the XJC site, Dave tried to divert attention from the damning evidence of Xenophone.

He posted a link to a 2 year old news report about kidney donations, to try to get us off the current subject. Only Stoic fell for it.

While I have defended Dave regarding active child abuse, I have to say that this is a case which may need further investigation by the law. I don't know, but it seems very suspect to me. That is my opinion. The only reason that I can think for it is that Dave might have wanted control over the person who confessed to abusing the two girls, and also control over the mother who he described as over protective, and control over the child involved. All reasons are not acceptable.

Recenty the Catholic Church has come under pressure to re-describe how it handles reports of child sex abuse. To me that would be the bottom line for Dave McKay as well

Regardless of confidences, pragmatic considerations, and power structures, this matter has to be addressed by current best practices.

This might mean that Dave has to admit that he failed in his duty of care regarding the case described by Xenophone.

Dave has posted an extensive time-line of the events relating to what Xenophone reported. In this scenario, there is nothing to be answered for by Dave, and it really should be the end of the matter, particularly if the matter was eventually reported to the police by the person concerned.

No, Apollo, NOT every young man who touches a girl inappropriately during some weird part of late adolescence (what DOES go on in their minds?) is a paedophile.

This is certainly not the end of the matter as far i'm concerned. McKay still has alot to answer for. You will not push me off course Blackhat. I will continue to address the issues which some people would rather sweep under the carpet.

He didn't touch ''a girl'' inappropriately. He molested TWO very young girls. This was not a one off. The man did it twice that we know of. McKay decided to withold this information from the police and allowed the man to continue working for him. We don't know what kind of ''projects'' this man took part in whilst in the JCs. There may have been ''projects'' involving vulnerable children in Kenya or India.

So please tell me what title you would give to a young man who has admitted to molesting a 5 year old and a 10 year old?

I'm sorry but where i'm from we don't just dismiss it as ''foolish'' or a ''weird part of adolescence''.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2010 11:19AM by Apollo.

I'll briefly highlight the main issues for the benefit of any newcomers to the thread.

Dave McKay has revealed that in 2003 one of his victims/followers ''X'' confessed to him that he had previously molested his ex girlfriend's two young daughters when he was 19 or 20 ''he had been playing with his girlfriend's ten year old daughter, when he touched her crotch through her clothes. He said that he had also inappropriately touched her five year old sister while she was sleeping''. Dave and Cherry at the time dismissed the incident as ''foolish''. In their mind's the man's confession did not constitute proof of paedophilia. ''X'' stated he had ''only'' done it twice. Dave and Cherry decided to trust ''X'' and felt he did not merit further investigation. ''X'' was not reported to the appropriate authorities or even encouraged to seek therapy. ''X'' was allowed to continue working for Dave in the JCc cult. At this stage it is unknown exactly how long ''X'' continued working in the JCs cult but it is believed on more than one occasion he was part of the JCs Kenya team working alongside vulnerable children on a daily basis.

Now moving onto the ''over concerned mother'' who quite rightly had major issues with Dave's suggestion that her six year old son should share a bedroom with ''X''. Dave and Cherry appear to be dismissing the seriousness of this incident because no sexual abuse took place. They are completely (intentionally) missing the point however. Former member ''Xenophone'' who gives an eye witness account explains... ''The bottom line is that Dave didn't safeguard against the risk of something of a sexual nature happening. He tried to force a young boy to sleep in a room which would have significantly raised the risk of him being in contact with a man whom he knew had a history of molesting young girls on more than one occasion while he was an adult. Worst still Dave tried to do this even against the mother's wishes, taking a grievance against her''.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2010 06:35PM by Apollo.

I had a brief skim through Davejc's last 'scenario,' it made me feel quite sick knowing that this is just another in a very long line of revisionist efforts to justify the very suspect behaviour and decision-making of this self-declared 'apostle of god.'
I wondered, why bother? Does a congenital liar ever write anything worth taking seriously?--but then that is just me.


Blackhat said:

'Dave has posted an extensive time-line of the events relating to what Xenophone reported.
In this scenario, there is nothing to be answered for by Dave, and it really should be the end of the matter, particularly if the matter was eventually reported to the police by the person concerned.'

there is nothing to be answered for by Dave, Isn't this Davejc's entire purpose in writing and posting such a scenario? To convince his audience that he is blameless and working for the good of all, like the 'annointed apostle of god' that he has declared himself to be?

Scenario is an interesting theatrical word, it is generally taken to be an imaginative plot-line for a fantasy production, "that which is pinned to the canvas" of which the scenery was constructed.'

[en.wikipedia.org]

'A scenario (from|Italian]], that which is pinned to the scenery) is a synthetic description of an event or series of actions and events. In the Commedia dell'arte it was an outline of entrances, exits, and action describing the plot of a play that was literally pinned to the back of the scenery. It is also known as canovaccio or "that which is pinned to the canvas" of which the scenery was constructed.'

Its a version of events, a synthetic description, played out for dramatic effect in front of an audience, why should it be taken as the definitive version that brings an end to the matter---unless one has bought into the similar 'scenario' that Davejc is the 'annointed apostle of god' who has the last word on eveything?


A straight-forward question, Blackhat: Why are you so keen to promote Davejc's latest of many such 'scenarios' on this subject and put an end to the matter?

I was under the distinct impression that Quakers didn't go for the 'apostle of god' malarkey in any disguise--it is one of the very sane and admirable basic tenets of the faith.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2010 08:06PM by Stoic.

I have argued vigorously with Dave McKay over many things where I can see a good case, and where it will serve as a warning to any new potential recruits.

However, in this instance I can neither see a good case nor how it is a warning to any new recruits.

In fact, I believe all this speculation and mud-slinging using the "Paedophile" word, is emotive and brings this forum into disrepute.

There is nobody lower on the social rung than the paedophile. The chorus here is beginning to sound like a group of thugs yelling "Nonce! Nonce!" at someone they don't like, with no other motive than to sling mud which they know will stick.

How about you look at the real issues, as I believe I have done, instead of trying to concoct a new spurious one with greater shock power?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2010 09:59PM by Blackhat.

The real issues, for me are how Davejc traps impressionable young people into his nasty little worldview and then exploits their trust in him, as an 'annointed apostle of god' to keep them in servitude to him, flogging the products of his nasty little mind on the streets and trains--all for for Davejc's benefit.

We have established that Davejc cribbed most of his tactics from 'Moses' David Berg of the infamous Children of God and that these tactics bear a marked similarity to the grooming process used by paedophiles to trap and damage naive, unwary and innocent children.

'Moses' David Berg of the infamous Children of God developed these tactics to create a paedophile paradise in his cult--that is why he is 'infamous.' As Davejc's mentor in the 'annointed apostle of god' business, it is reasonable to ask just how much of 'the world according to 'Moses' David Berg of the infamous Children of God ' Davejc bought into and whether that has some bearing on Davejc's very strange inability to accept any normal definition of paedophilia--or, indeed, any definition at all of that behaviour.

According to Davejc, molesting children while they are sleeping--the most vulnerable time for anyone--does not count as paedophilia since the children are not hurt in the process.

How does he know?

This reasoning flies in the face of every known modern finding on the subject, by much greater and more honest intellects than that old 'annointed apostle of god', Davejc. It has been known and accepted for some considerable time that people in extended vegetative states--prolonged comas---have a residual awareness of events happening around them and can respond in subtle ways---- how much more awareness is present in the normal sleep state?

Davejc elects to leave the paedophile in place with no control or effort to minimise risk and with continued access to vulnerable children---for years. He is the 'annointed apostle of god', after all, and Daddy knows best.

It is entirely reasonable to question Davejc's motives and methods, particularly when he is expending his entire effort currently to redescribe his interactions with known paedophiles. He brought the subject up to begin with--in his crass attempt to find a 'more loving and humane attempt to deal with the paedophile problem'

I think we have seen his solution of a 'more loving and humane attempt to deal with the paedophile problem' in his behaviour---no action necessary, simply redescribe the paedophile problem in the same way he has attempted to redefine the cult problem--declare it doesn't exist and bob's your uncle, its business as usual.

Can there be any greater denial than this? (Incidentally, its doctrine over person, no 7 on Ofshe's list [forum.culteducation.com])

I can see why Davejc has made such an attempt to distance himself from his beginnings as a follower of 'Moses' David Berg of the infamous Children of God -----'annointed apostle of god' with such a convenient blind spot towards the real problems of paedophilia----you really can't put a pin between them.

Xenophone made a brief comment (due to time restraints) on Davejc's latest scenario:
[jcs.xjcs.org]

'All I can say is that there is so much conjecture and assumption in it that most of it could be dealt with as a whole rather than point by point.'

Worth noting I think from someone with a much greater exposure to Davejc than most, but I translate that quite freely as "a load of self-justifying rubbish, as usual".

and falling_leaves has now gone to bat there on Davejc's behalf. Is there no end to the sock puppets at his command?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2010 10:52PM by Stoic.

Blackhat:

Refrain from personal attacks and making pronouncements about this message board.

If you have a point to make just make it , without the vitriolic statements.

No flaming, which is against the rules.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/31/2010 10:58PM by rrmoderator.

BTW, Blackhat, I took your advice and started looking at the history of this thread. I found this posting by apostate of an article written by Davejc where he explains his 'credentials' as an 'annointed apostle of god'

[forum.culteducation.com]

I have reformatted, for ease of reading, the highlights (by apostate) that did not display properly in the original posting:



"Divine Authority
More needs to be said about the actual gift of leadership. I have tried all my life to convince myself that anyone can be a leader; but no amount of effort on my part has been able to get some people to see past following whoever happens to be shouting the loudest at the time, regardless of whether they are right or wrong in what they are shouting. We can't put all the blame onto bad leaders if people are silly enough to follow them unthinkingly; but then, if the issues are complex and the bad leader is clever with words, I'm not so sure that we can put all the blame on the followers either.
The ability to lead is a gift, that can be used for good or evil. But you need to learn how to choose good leaders over bad ones.
I can't help but feel that if I had better access to some people, I could get them to follow me in preference to their churchy leaders. And I feel that if I could them to follow me, I could eventually get them to follow Jesus. BUT MAYBE NOT. Maybe some people are just attracted to rebellious leaders, and it was just a matter of time before they would find one to follow. At any rate, it is important to realise that, merely being a gifted leader does not guarantee that a person will not abuse that gift.
There is something else that I'll call divine authority, which is something quite apart from gifted leadership. Every leader will claim some kind of authority, which seems to be almost synonymous with being a leader. But DIVINE authority is different, and it can only come from God.
It is something like the difference between pride and confidence. People often confuse them, but one is the counterfeit of the other. A confident person has the respect of others; but is actually humble enough to accept criticism. A proud person tries to demand that people respect him or her, and a proud person hides from criticism.
Rebel leaders are like this. They hide from criticism and teach their subjects not to criticise them. But having such power does not say anything about whether they have God's authority to be leading. In fact, as a general rule, the worst leaders are usually the ones whose so-called authority needs to be most protected from ciriticism. And the best leaders are the ones who are most tolerant of criticism.
I have always tolerated a great deal of criticism, even criticism from rebels, ex-members, and outright enemies. But don't forget that I am the captain of this ship. I know where we are going, because I am getting my orders from God. I don't have to preach long sermons on it or abuse people in order to make it clear. Nor do I need to hide from confrontations with critics. For the most part, my record will speak for itself, both in showing my authority from God and in showing my ability to take criticism. But the bottom line is that I am here because God has given me a job to do, and I must do it. I'm not here to promote myself in opposition to someone else. I'm here to get God's work done.
I would like to think that each one of you could leave this community and start another community all over again, as Cherry and I did from scratch; but unless you did so under clear direction from God, you would almost certainly be led astray if you tried, just as has happened with others who have left our community. The problem is not that they lacked ability, but only that they lacked authority from God to do such a thing. "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that do it." And being clever with words and having a stack of my teachings won't amount to anything if you aren't being led by God. For the time being, God has put me here to lead you, and you are not free to just declare yourself to be the leader and automatically expect God to honour your decree.
I rebelled against the "covering" doctrine in the churches, because they were saying that, right or wrong, people have to follow church leadership. No way! If the leaders are wrong, you must not follow them; but if they are right, it's a different story. If you rebel against a "right" leader, you rebel against God, and he will lift his anointing and protection from you. The reason you would fail would not be because I'm so special, but just that any kingdom divided against itself will not stand. God is not stupid. If he has appointed me to lead this work, then he will expect others [in this movement] to work in submission to me.
He may have other leaders out there (whom we haven't met yet) who also have his authority; but he is not going to anoint two leaders in opposition to one another. Even completely separate ministries must be willing to submit to one another in love.
God has at this time and in this corner of the world, anointed me as his apostle. As long as I am doing my job right, he is not going to anoint someone else to rebel against me. If I get away from God, then I will lose my anointing and God will give authority to someone else to take my place. But beware! Just because you get a chance to start a rebellion, doesn't mean that you have authority nor that I have lost mine; and if I catch you rebelling, I will wield the rod of correction in obedience to God, since it is really God that you are rebelling against when you do that.
For many years in the churches, I listened to sermons from desperate men trying to keep their troops together. They preached submission to themselves in sermon after sermon, week after week. Because of that I more or less vowed not to preach such sermons in my community, and I urged followers to think for themselves and not to be afraid to question me. But over and over the very people I have taught this to have turned on me when they got out of the spirit, and argued that I was power hungry and cruel, just as they have argued with God.
All that was bad in all those preachers has come out through the lips of those who have rebelled against my leadership. They have become obsessed with protecting themselves from criticism, and refusing to talk to anyone who criticises them. Now I see that, in over-reacting to a false teaching, I had missed an element of truth in it as well. People are given a choice between leaders who welcome criticism and ones who outlaw it, and they end up attacking the ones who tolerate criticism, because they know we will be tolerant of their outbursts.
I now see that, in an effort to do what is right myself (i.e. to accept criticism), I failed to teach respect for divine authority. So gutless followers who are too frightened to stand up to really dictatorial leaders, will turn on the gracious one because they know that he will take it. And if he doesn't, then they'll quote his own teachings back to him in an effort to get him to justify their actions. It is time to put an end to this misconception. Just because I am willing to listen to criticism (and my critics are not) does not mean that the critics are right. In fact, most of them are eternally wrong.
What I am saying does not exempt you from a need to develop a strong conscience and personal accountability before God. These things are especially important in the event that I do go off the rails. But I am ruling out everyone running off with their own opinions and saying that they have as much right as me to say what is right. The plain truth is that you don't. You don't all have the "divine authority" which God has, at least for the present, given to me, to lead this movement.
What I am saying here also does not make me infallible, nor does it exempt me from criticism, as I've already said above. But it does say that if you are going to take a grievance against me, you had better be sure before you start that you are right, or you may be dealt with harshly for taking a false or frivolous grievance. We need to put an end to all those vexatious litigations that I used to almost encourage, in order to make it clear that I wasn't trying to railroad people on issues.
I have authority from God, to lead this movement back to obedience to Jesus, and back to living by faith, in preparation for the return of Christ. There is a difference between divine authority and the political manoeuvrings of those who seek power for selfish purposes. The political empire builders are like blithering idiots when confronted with someone who is sincerely looking for the truth. And when they're not spreading hatred against me personally, they are running in fear that they will have to answer for something that they have said. The truth is that they are running from God, to whom they will have to answer for their actions, no matter how much they run from me.
I want to especially thank those of you who had the courage to act on authority from God in confronting rebellion even when I was guilty of trying to be soft on it (in order to make myself look like a "nice guy"). Confronting rebellion of your own initiative is the kind of action that makes you true leaders. Mind you, it doesn't guarantee that you too might not be lifted up with pride one day; and that's why God has put me over you for the time being. But it does show that you have a certain amount of divine authority already, which will just simply make way for itself if you continue to sincerely and humbly follow God."

_____________________________________________________________

Article ends.




Like I said, Daddy knows best. There are no such things as cults and no such things as paedophiles, case closed.

Thanks, Stoic, that's what I was talking about.

I read this early in my involvement in the issues of the Jesus Christians, and I have never forgotten it. It was a passage which made me decide that this had to be stopped.

When I realised that someone with that mind-set was recruiting young people to give everything they have to him, to beg on the streets as a form of witnessing, to donate kidneys as a sign of love for mankind, and to practice whipping, either as the whipper or the whippee.....

When I realised the kind of mind behind all this, I knew I had to do something....

Edit: I can find zeuszor posting it on Nov 17th 2007.

My reply to it then was:

Quote

That is an astounding piece of writing. The man is the only vessel of God. And none of us saw it. All we can do now is cease our dispute with him, obey God's will and hearken to the one true voice.

And I followed it with:

Quote

My question to the Australian Quakers now is, should intolerance be tolerated? At what point do those who love and tolerate diversity, respect and recognition of the religious needs of others decide that they can no longer commune with one who preaches the opposite - i.e. unbending loyalty to the one who claims to be the "One True Leader"?

This is where I come from in all of this.....



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/01/2011 12:06AM by Blackhat.