Talk:Karen Zerby

Old Church and the New Church

I dropped reference to "A Prophecy on the Old Church and New Church" because no reference to either Jane Miller or Karen Zerby is made or implied in that publication. I have tried to straighten out some facts but still object to the tone of parts of this article. --Cognomen2 22:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed this article reads like a expose' of wanted criminals and mass murders - how about a little less editorial hysteria and more attention to WIKI protocols based upon the facts.

What's objectionable is continually trying to make Wikipedia articles conform (in content and tone) to the anti-cult articles on the site which he manages. I am reverting the article back to your last edit, as you gave reasons for your edits. It was just reverted without explanation or discussion. IMO, the use of the "sexual partner" term seemed quite petty, especially in light of the Family's "sharing" doctrine.--Kibbitzer 23:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I am not sure why it would be reverted without explanation. I read over that particular publication carefully before deleting reference to it. No where in it does Berg say God told him to divorce his first wife and marry Karen Zerby. So unless they can point out otherwise I can't see where the objection is to that deletion. I am certainly standing up for at least a modicum of decency in how Wikipedia would treat Karen Zerby. I realize that she and the Family International are being portrayed in an increasingly unpopular light but that does not mean the way she and they are portrayed is correct.--Cognomen2 23:56, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please explain what this means then: all things shall become new and old things shall pass away and I will have a new bride who will love Me and obey Me and do My will and bear Me children, no longer barren as she was, for this is My Will for this last generation? AlistairMcMillan 00:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for not getting back here sooner. I see now from these comments that I think there is a misunderstanding. I assume from the question you are not aware of who is speaking and in what context this prophecy is being given. It is in a prophecy from God (in other words it is not David Berg who is being referred to in the capitalized pronouns here) talking about raising up a new church of believers as opposed to the old formal denominations. This is not about Berg's first wife Jane Miller, known in the Children of God as Mother Eve, as opposed to Karen Zerby. I believe even Monger will attest to this interpretation. In this prophecy God is calling believers who will be moved with passion for him and zealously spread His message so that further new believers (the children spoken of here) will be won to Him the New Church, as opposed to the formal churches, the Old Church, who were doing nothing and basically were dead and losing members. I have been in this group for many years and this is the interpretation that is universally understood among us. The New Church referred to in this prophecy is the collective membership of The Children of God/The Family International, not Karen Zerby.

However, I have since noticed that this misunderstanding was first put in print by David Van Zant and later repeated in J Gordon Melton's book the Encyclopedia of American Religions, 1986 edition, and repeated in a lot of other publications since. I assume that has in turn been quoted by James Lewis. It was in his book on us Sex Slander and Salvation, so I understand why you are accusing me of revisionism. Although the Old Church New Church concept could possibly be applied to the Berg and his wives this is not what is stated in that publication. The text I replaced was clearly erroneous when it states: "In a prophecy titled A Prophecy of God on the Old Church and the New Church Berg explained that he had been told by God to leave his first wife, Jane Miller, who represented the old church, for Zerby who became his soi-disant second wife, who represented the new church." He says no such thing in that publication and I think you would be hard pressed to make that case even in allegory. So my edit is more accurate.

Berg's marriage to Jane Miller was not a very happy one although they did stay together until their children were grown to adulthood. In Karen Zerby he found his soul mate. Although for awhile they had a somewhat awkward threesome sort of arrangement, Jane soon got involved in a long-term relationship with another Family member. Berg continued supporting Jane and they remained friendly.

It is interesting to note that in his recent book on the Children of God/The Family, Dr. Melton makes no mention of the Old Church/New Church analogy but simply makes the statement "Shortly after the formation of the Children of God, Berg and Mother Eve separated and he married a relatively young convert, Karen Zerby, known within the movement as Maria. Several years later, Mother Eve left the movement but she remained friendly to Berg and the Family" [Melton 1997:4] ISBN 1-56085-180-5. I will refrain from reediting the article for a day or so until you have had sometime to digest this information. --Cognomen2 16:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, putting aside for the moment that only members of The Family believe that Berg was receiving messages from God and even then it is questionable how many actually believe that, and also putting aside the vast sums of money that Melton has received in the last few decades from The Family, would you be at least willing to admit that the Old Church/New Church prophecy followed quickly after Berg's decision to leave his first wife for his second wife? Coincidence?

Also given that Miller was referred to as "Mother Eve" in The Family, who is Berg referring to in the prophecy when he says "Why dost thou not honour this, our mother? Has she not been faithful through many years and ages and times? Hath she not preserved us over the centuries? Hath she not made unto us homes and palaces and nourished us and clothed us in fine linen? Is she not our Mother? Why, therefore dost thou disown her and dishonour her to us, and take unto thee this one who is nothing—contemptible in her sight, despicable unto us, who is nobody, and how doth thou flaunt her in our face to shame us and dishonour our Mother?" Coincidence again? AlistairMcMillan 17:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

How do you know only members of the Family believed Berg received messages from God? We believe that lots of people receive messages from God and there are probably people other people out there who think the same. And Berg is never referred to with capitalized pronouns in any Family literature. As for the coincidence, yes it is. The section you chose to quote talks about the 'Mother' being around for centuries and clothing the people with fine linen and making palaces. Mother Eve does not fit this at all. The mother referred to in this prophecy is the institutionalized church. As for Melton receiving money from the Family, I believe you can turn up one instance of him receiving money from a foundation staffed by Family members that went specifically to finance his Encyclopedia of American Religions project. It is on the foundation's books that are public record. What do you class as vast amounts of money? As a grant it was probably fairly standard.--Cognomen2 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason I reverted immediately without discussion is that the edit is a blatant attempt at revisionism, bordering on vandalism. Anyone that is familiar with the Family knows the link between Berg's first and second wives and the "The Old Church and the New Church". AlistairMcMillan 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The edit is not a blatant attempt at revisionism and no where near vandalism and I take offense at it being referred to in that way. However, as stated above, I understand why you would see it this way.--Cognomen2 16:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You have to admit though your edits do betray a certain POV concerning this particular "new religious movement". AlistairMcMillan 17:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone has a point of view including you it seems since you have placed New Religious Movement in quotation marks. However, I think I stuck mostly to a fairly neutral tone. I don't refer to Karen Zerby in a flattering way. I just corrected something that was in error. I think also I was very careful to give you time to reply before I re-edited the article. Not many people wait, it seems, but I answered your questions and waited over 48 hours before again fixing the article. I think you, as an administrator of Wikipedia, should be careful that you stick to a NPOV rather than obviously here trying to cast aspersions in a very POV way. You made some pretty serious charges which you have not been able to back up. I didn't get hot under the collar about them but gave you the benefit of the doubt, something that you have not, it seems, given to me.--Cognomen2 20:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

"...not been able to back up..." I gave you my sources when I started the page and I gave you the exact page numbers and pointed out that the ISBN numbers are listed if you want to check up on my sources. What more do you expect me to do?

"...benefit of the doubt..." When you are a member of The Family and every single edit you have made as Cognomen and Cognomen2 is related to The Family and every single edit is directed to toning down anything controversial about The Family, what conclusion do you expect people to reach? AlistairMcMillan 21:18, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes you gave me the sources but that doesn't make the sources right. And you obviously have read the particular prophecy and you realize it seems you cannot back up your previous assumption as per your latest edit. I have pointed out that there was an error beginning years ago in the literature on the Family and that error has made its way through many publications. It sounds nice in theory but it is nevertheless wrong. However, you continue to be stuck on it. The fact that you accused me of revisionism and vandalism is what I claimed you couldn't back up. And you haven't. Sure, I don't make any secret that I am a member of the Family International and yes my interest in Wikipedia as far as an editor/contributor has been so far confined to articles contected to my organization. However, I have stuck to facts rather than rhetoric. It is also something I can write knowledgeably about. Perhaps you would like to list your bona fides and we can see from what basis you can speak about Karen Zerby or the Family International.--Cognomen2 22:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be confused. Your personal experience or opinion or knowledge doesn't matter. Do you have a source directly contradicting Dr. House? Do you have a source that backs up your claim that the Miller/Zerby/OldChurchNewChurch link is a mistake? If you do then by all means let us know. Otherwise if you are just speaking from your personal knowledge, then I'm afraid that isn't how this encyclopedia is supposed to work. AlistairMcMillan 22:41, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems you are the one confused here. You quote from a book by a Dr. House who as far as I know has no first hand knowledge of the issue and then claim years of personal experience and knowledge of the issue on my part are not relevant. I think you have a very strange idea of how an encyclopedia, even Wikipedia, is supposed to work. You remind me of Galileo's critics who, disregarding his stellar observations, insisted the Sun and stars revolved around the Earth simply because a bunch of scholars from antiquity said that. It is a pity you are so stuck on this that rather than admitting a mistake you want to go on defending something that is an error. It is such a minor thing with regard to the article.--Cognomen2 23:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you read Wikipedia:Five pillars, that would be good too. BTW I like that you are assuming I have no personal knowledge of the Family. AlistairMcMillan 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

For further verification of the meaning of The Old Church, New Church prophecy and how it relates to Zerby and Jane Miller, see Deborah Davis' account (she was actually there). --Monger 04:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just saw the following from Cognomen2: "This is not about Berg's first wife Jane Miller, known in the Children of God as Mother Eve, as opposed to Karen Zerby. I believe even Monger will attest to this interpretation."

I'm not sure why you believe I'd think that. I don't, and it is well understood within The Family that the Old Church, New Church prophecy refers to both The Family v. the traditional church system as well as Miller v. Zerby. --Monger 06:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Still further verification can be found from Berg himself... in Mo Letter #716, paragraph 16, he writes: "IT WAS THEN THE LORD GAVE US THIS PROPHECY, WARNING US THAT THERE WAS GOING TO COME A DIVISION BETWEEN US. It also says that the house of Saul is the Old Church & Maria & I & our young people are the New Church." --Monger 00:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

And for those who may be reading this and are genuinely unaware of the link please see page 122 of "Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements" and page 20 of "Controversial New Religions". The ISBN numbers are available on the Karen Zerby page. Restoring the previous version. AlistairMcMillan 00:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not have either of the books to refer to although I know James Lewis has written fairly on us in the past. I doubt, however, whether the Zondervan book does as they have published other books about new religions that I believe show a religious bias. There is a lot of erroneous information out there and just because it is in some book does not make it accurate. There is however quite a bit of information that is accurate. I point you to the CESNUR web site and its documents on the Family at http://www.cesnur.org/testi/TheFamily/se_thefamily.htm. Also to The Endtime Family by William Sims Bainbridge, the The Children of God/The Family by J Gordon Melton, and Cults, Sects, and New Religions by Eileen Barker, OBE, and the article on us on the Human Rights Without Frontiers site http://www.hrwf.net/html/the_family__observatory_on_rel.html. --Cognomen2 16:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Kibbitzer and Cognomen2, I just reread this article and cannot find anything in it which in my mind portrays Zerby in an "unpopular light" or without decency. And I'm not sure why you think noting that Kelly and Zerby were sexual partners before their soi-disant marriage is "petty".

Lastly, the link to xfamily is just fine back where McMillan moved it, but FYI the Zerby article on xFamily was used as a reference for some things here (e.g. place of birth, which was not previously common knowledge), though said article was indeed originally based on (and later expanded from) the info here. --Monger 01:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Spiritual mediums

Can Karen Zerby get categorized in category:spiritual mediums? Andries 11:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably better to add something to the page about her being a spiritual medium first, then add the cat. Right now the page doesn't mention any of that so at the moment people might be confused if they followed the "spiritual medium" cat to this page. Anyone know a good source on her prophecies? AlistairMcMillan 16:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The problem with placing her into the category:spiritual mediums, though technically correct may still be wrong because the term "spiritual medium" is generally reserved for people either from New age channeling or spiritism and I do not think that they see themselves and then members of the children of God as belonging to either one of these movements. I think that the Category:Christian prophets would be more in accordance with how the followers see Karen Zerby and David Berg (and in the latter case how Berg sees himself). Of course, this could be found objectionable by people who do not accept their claim to be prophets. Andries 16:55, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, before we even think about adding her to any category, we need information on the actual page explaining about her prophecies. Do you know of any good sources on this topic? AlistairMcMillan 17:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

External links

Added {{No more links}} to EL sect. Cirt (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add this link, as it is a short documentary about "The Family" and in particular the murder-suicide of Ricky Rodriguez that aired on A Current Affair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tsy7iEWmvE Patty Mooney (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)