Franklin Files

**Date:** Jan 25, 2010

Once again we have a high ranking police officer/pedophile

**Date:** Jan 27, 2010

RE: Once again...

**Date:** Jan 27, 2010

Yes, I think you are onto something fairly signifigant, but it is controversial for guys to talk about such things. And the examples of sexual repression (celibacy) in the Catholic Church and the widespread child abuse that we are all aware of, may really make certain people upset, so I never bring those things up. But, there is ALOT of stigma, especially in previous generations, concerning male homosexuality, or even bisexuality, and I do believe that has caused some of these people alot of psychological problems and confusions and unhealthy obsessions. However, alot of people still believe that homosexuality itself is unhealthy and inappropriate. But when it comes to the rich and powerful, their aphrodisiac is power and the ability to do anything they wish, so that becomes a major perversion as well, and they feel they can own and dominate people, anyone and everyone, including innocent children. That is a real nasty crime. I can have sympathy for alot of the confused adults that have unhealthy obsessions or fixations on younger ages; they need and can get help. But these other people, like Larry King and their whole operation... are beyond being able to change their ways.

**Date:** Jan 27, 2010

Meenakshi108 wrote:

I do wonder if many of these molestations are the result of having to suppress homosexual tendencies. If the perpetrators had been able to openly express their feelings toward the same sex, rather than hiding it, would the outcome be different? Or were they predators to begin with? I guess we'll find out in decades to come as children grow up and do not have to hide their sexual orientation.

I don't really buy that argument in general because then you could easily make the argument that men who abuse young girls are hiding their heterosexuality or that people who abuse both young boys and girls are hiding bisexuality which is a bit nosensical.

While sexuality may exist in a non-absolutist continuum of feelings, Paedophiles enjoy the power of being that way more than having either straight or gay tendencies. It's basically the attraction of children as sexual objects. I'm sure others have many subjective reasons for doing it but that basic fact I think is true.

-- Edited by JOE UMAN on Wednesday 27th of January 2010 03:11:21 PM

**Date:** Jan 28, 2010

its just lust and lust is evil

**Date:** Jan 28, 2010

Josh wrote:

its just lust and lust is evil

...so lust is the same as paedophelia?...a bit naive really. If there was no lust there would be no children in the first place. It's all about balance/proportion. It's only fundamentalist religion that brands lust as a sin which is ironic considering the amount of paedophiles lurking within the fundamentalist movement, hello Evangelists and Catholic church et al.

-- Edited by JOE UMAN on Thursday 28th of January 2010 04:28:21 PM

**Date:** Jan 28, 2010

Josh you are correct lust is of course a sin please delete this anti Christian statement thank you

**Date:** Jan 28, 2010

Child abuse and other abuses can be found practiced by people of all religions and non religions. I don't mention some of them because I don't have a strong working knowledge of ones outside the U.S. When religion becomes more important than the abuses that are committed by people within I believe (IMO) that their "cover" has worked. This is about people who abuse and the systems they use to hid it in the effort to seem respectable.

On lust for those that care, see
http://searchwarp.com/swa349660.htm

-- Edited by Capt on Thursday 28th of January 2010 10:15:25 PM

**Date:** Jan 29, 2010

rbeck wrote:

Josh you are correct lust is of course a sin please delete this anti Christian statement thank you

Actually, the issue here is the effect of suppression on the human psyche and Joe has made a very valid point as much of the perversions we see in the church are most likely a direct result of the "abstinence only" mentality coupled with the judgementalism which forces people to hide their feelings rather than dealing with them in an honest and practical way.

Similarly, I have seen many very messed up gay people whom I suspect might not be so messed up had they been able to live their lives without the judgementalism which caused them to have to run away from home at a young age, etc.

Humans are prone to make mistakes and that is a fact of life. Anyone who tries to "force" humans into being perfect is being unrealistic.

**Date:** Jan 29, 2010

yeah you can try to separate lust from illicit sex with all the psychobable rationalising but at the root it is still lust and lust is evil

as much as you hate to admit it, there actually is good and evil and i think your good and evil detector is quite broken or you have turned it off so as to justify your own lusts with your modern, open minded, tolerant, progressive Mind Kontrol

**Date:** Jan 29, 2010

Josh wrote:

yeah you can try to separate lust from illicit sex with all the psychobable rationalising but at the root it is still lust and lust is evil

as much as you hate to admit it, there actually is good and evil and i think your good and evil detector is quite broken or you have turned it off so as to justify your own lusts with your modern, open minded, tolerant, progressive Mind Kontrol

http://searchwarp.com/swa349660.htm

As a pastor whom has been called upon to provide biblical counseling to people through the years I am still frequently amused by the questions that are brought my way. Such was the case when I was recently approached by a young couple that I have been counseling for some five years now. And after hearing the young man's question it occurred to me that there are probably numerous husbands that have asked the same question. "Is it OK to lust after my wife?"

Christians have been taught since the time of Christ that lust is a bad thing. And to the extent that an individual lusts after things that are not his, this is true. However, in our Christian wedding vows we use such phrases as, "Forsaking all others and cleaving only unto her" and "To have and to hold."

If we think of lust as the desire to share sexual intimacy with our spouse, the woman that we love, our partner and our friend... then there is no sin involved. However, if we think of lust as the freedom to exploit our spouse, if we think of them as just physical objects and fail to take into consideration their feelings and desires, then it is sin.

The problem frequently arises when the husband is filled with a desire to have sex with his wife but she is not in the mood. If the man persists, against his wife's objections, then he may reduce his wife into thinking that she is nothing more than a whore or a cheap lay. It is the mutual desire for one another that ignites the spark of passion.

In any event, if we think of "lust" for one's wife as the desire to express love through sexual intercourse, then it is perfectly normal and nothing to be ashamed of. Neither should the wife provoke feelings of guilt in her husband because of his desire for her.

But, what does the Bible say about these things?

The Book of Proverbs gives us a perfect example of the difference between healthy sexual desire for one's wife and lust...

Proverbs 5:18-20 (NIV)

18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.

19 A loving doe, a graceful deer-
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.

20 Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?

Solomon, the author of Proverbs, encourages the husband to direct his "lust" towards his wife when he says "may her breasts satisfy you always". Not sometimes... not once in a while... but always. The husband should find delight in the physical desirability of his wife. Solomon also draws a distinct connection between sex and love with the words, "May you ever be captivated by her love."

Solomon, further delineates between the appropriate sexual desire a husband should have for his wife and the inappropriate lust for another man's wife. The sexual desire is essentially the same, however it is the conscious direction of that desire that differentiates between what is right and what is wrong, between what is sin and what is not sin.

Solomon had much more to say about love, desire and sex, and he wrote about it in what is perhaps the most romantic, passionate and graphic description of desire from antiquity, the Song of Solomon...

Song of Solomon 7:6-8 (NIV)

6 How beautiful you are and how pleasing,
O love, with your delights!

7 Your stature is like that of the palm,
and your breasts like clusters of fruit.

8 I said, "I will climb the palm tree;
       I will take hold of its fruit."
       May your breasts be like the clusters of the vine,
       the fragrance of your breath like apples,

Does this sound like there is just a little desire going on? You betcha! The groom in this story is, to use a modern expression, lusting after the bride. He wants her. He wants to have her. He wants to make love to her. He doesn't want to just climb a palm tree. This intense desire that the man has for the woman is not only normal, it is biblical. It is part of God's plan for a husband and a wife.

Solomon uses even more expressive metaphorical language throughout the Song of Solomon that can leave no doubt but that these two lovers had a burning desire to consummate their relationship. This desire is not something that is to be snuffed out after the honeymoon. The desire and romance should be nurtured and pursued and appreciated.

As husband and wife two individuals belong to one another. Their "lust" for one another is not only permissible but helpful to sustaining a long and happy relationship. The Apostle Paul addresses this issue when he states in 1 Corinthians 7:4-5 (NIV):

The key to controlling "lust", according to Paul, is the understanding that a husband and wife belong to one another. They each put the other person first. Making love is a matter of mutual desire, as is the decision to refrain from sexual intercourse. Yet, there is also the understanding that abstinence may cause temptation to your partner, and this can only happen when one partner does not make any effort to fulfill the needs of the other.

So, is it OK for a man to "lust" for his wife? Yes... when she "lusts" for him right back!

4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

**Date:** Jan 29, 2010

So, many look at abuse from an "attraction" perspective.

Isn't there a "violent" perspective to it also? Maybe even anger?

**Date:** Jan 29, 2010

Meenakshi108 wrote:

rbeck wrote:

Josh you are correct lust is of course a sin please delete this anti Christian statement thank you

Actually, the issue here is the effect of suppression on the human psyche and Joe has made a very valid point as much of the perversions we see in the church are most likely a direct result of the "abstinence only" mentality coupled with the judgementalism which forces people to hide their feelings rather than dealing with them in an honest and practical way.

Similarly, I have seen many very messed up gay people whom I suspect might not be so messed up had they been able to live their lives without the judgementalism which caused them to have to run away from home at a young age, etc.

Humans are prone to make mistakes and that is a fact of life. Anyone who tries to "force" humans into being perfect is being unrealistic.

If I may introduce a slightly different concept from the "suppression" model. There is a law used in hypnosis called "The Law of Reverse Effect". If this effect is true then it would seem the more focus given to cultural taboos, the more prominent they become. So rather than suppression, maybe the focus given to these issues by those that try to restrict, actually give these taboos strength.

Rule 7: Law of Reverse Effect:

The harder you try, the less you will succeed

The Law of Reverse Effect (also known as the Law of Reversed Effort) states that when dealing with the power of the subconscious mind, the greater the conscious effort, the less the subconscious response. The subconscious mind is there to protect you. That is its primary function. It learns and remembers rules of behavior that prevent you from getting hurt. These rules and behaviors are created in response to some emotional event, usually in childhood. Every situation that is similar to the childhood event gets treated according to the rule that was made up then. If the rule works it gets reinforced and becomes a habit and becomes your standard, immediate, subconscious response.

Any attempt to change the habit, the automatic behavior, gets fiercely resisted because that would mean abandoning the rule. And the unconscious knows that if the rule is not followed then you will get hurt. And it will do anything to prevent that. So when you try to change the habituated response, it is regarded as an attack by the unconscious mind, and is resisted. The more pressure you apply the more resistance is generated. (The correct way to attain change is use the mind's own change processes: creative visualization and emotional association, which was the way the rule was put there in the first place).

**Date:** Jan 29, 2010

I won't weigh in on the theological, epistemological, or psychological interpretations of lust, because I find it to be a very convoluted subject, but I once wrote: If love is, in fact, blind, then lust is deaf, dumb, and quadriplegic.

**Date:** Jan 29, 2010

Josh wrote:

yeah you can try to separate lust from illicit sex with all the psychobable rationalising but at the root it is still lust and lust is evil

as much as you hate to admit it, there actually is good and evil and i think your good and evil detector is quite broken or you have turned it off so as to justify your own lusts with your modern, open minded, tolerant, progressive Mind Kontrol

So you won't tolerate anything but your own view? That's a good model for the world, Hitler, Stalin and the Emperor's of Rome had the same idea.

I never said there wasn't good and evil and I don't "hate" to admit anything, a strange presumption to make, like you're trying to coerce the opposite person's response into your own view. Hate is a very strong word to convict anyone of and life isn't as simple or as controlled as you may have been led to believe. I'm sure many of Franklin's perpetrators were/are "devout". Religion can be used to do that to people in a "mind control" type of fashion and true tolerance is what helps prevent one creed from killing another. He who has not sinned and all that...

Religion is also used as a get out clause, as long as you "repent" before the end, you can do what you want in life. I don't see any real life morals in that belief.

People can believe whatever they want as long as it doesn't forcefully coerce or harm others. You can believe/question what you want as I do.

Qusetioning is healthy, Franklin would not be exposed, kept alight otherwise

As far as I know, lust is not illicit.

-- Edited by JOE UMAN on Friday 29th of January 2010 07:03:19 PM

**Date:** Jan 30, 2010

Josh wrote:

yeah you can try to separate lust from illicit sex with all the psychobable rationalising but at the root it is still lust and lust is evil

as much as you hate to admit it, there actually is good and evil and i think your good and evil detector is quite broken or you have turned it off so as to justify your own lusts with your modern, open minded, tolerant, progressive Mind Kontrol

Josh, tell that to all the men who wouldn't wear condoms and left women
with babies while they ran off.

According to your world view, you should ONLY have sex if you are married and intend to procreate. Anything else is sinful. Are you walking your talk?

**Date:** Jan 30, 2010

"however it is the conscious direction of that desire that differentiates between what is right and what is wrong, between what is sin and what is not sin."

I believe this actually goes right along with Capt's point about the Law of Reverse Effect. It actually fits with certain Eastern concepts such as yin/yang or the idea of yoga or union. While we can make a distinction between inner and outer, spiritual and fleshly and so forth it is simply unnatural to dwell on one while denying the other, and you will inevitably find the other coming into play if you try. Also, in the Christian tradition isn't there this concept of "being in the world but not of it"? Isn't the point to live consciously in this life even while having the instinctual drives of the body?

This also applies to the point about attraction and violence. If you think about it, it is two sides of the same coin. Both behaviors involves being bound with the other, otherwise you would just be indifferent and not interact in any way. It's been said that hate is basically "confused love." Of course, violence can happen because the perpetrator basically has 0 regard for life, just as some may simply use another for their own pleasure without any concern for their well being whatsoever - THAT is different, it isn't a crime of passion but reflects a lack of conscience.

**Date:** Jan 30, 2010

And this is actually very telling, because while you may have two sides very much opposed to each other based on their ideology and whatnot, I would say true evil is not so concerned with taking sides in such squabbles, but more likely utilizing and manipulating the situation as a whole for its own gain. In todays world I don't think it's enough to recognize evil and steer clear from it, and even there I doubt most people can see the subtleties. You can understand how it works without being influenced by it. Actually, it only makes sense if you are consciously aware of how it works, otherwise how can you know if your instincts are really correct? Whether you're Christian or belong to any other faith, hasn't there been perversions of pretty much everything under the sun? That's no guarantee of anything.

**Date:** Feb 8, 2010

The rule by which I try to live is First, do no harm. Sexual desire, whether anyone likes it or not, is a natural part of being human. What is harmful about lust is when it is used as an excuse to take someone, male or female, against their will. As an adult who has had completely voluntary relationships over the years with adults of both genders, I would not want someone telling me what I should do with my life if I have not harmed anyone in the process. Gay, straight or in between, we should all be revolted by what the Franklin victims have gone through, and we should not forget the harm done to Paul, Alicia, John Gosch and the others too numerous to mention. But if I can differentiate these obviously horrific misuses of lust from non-violent expressions of desire, whether gay or straight, this for me reflects my ability to live in civilized society without doing harm. If my beliefs are in contradiction to what might be called proper Christianity, then so be it. I am an agnostic who does not claim to be a Christian, and I refuse to believe that Christianity is necessarily the only answer for everyone. If Christianity works for you and yours, you have the right to live as you desire pursuant to the terms of our Constitution.

**Date:** Feb 11, 2010

Maybe this case won't get the usual cover-up. In my book, Nightmares and Secrets: The Real Story of the 1984 Child Sexual Abuse Scandal in Jordan Minnesota" I mention on page 194 John Decamp attacking Attorney General Skip Humphrey's 29 page report and the case being closed for insufficient evidence. DeCamp claims that Paul Bonacci visited Jordan and was specifically at the home of James Rud. Rud gave a 126 page confession in this case and was senteced to 40 years at the Moose Lake prison. He later recanted his confession. Recently he was released from prison and is out on some sort of supervised release. I have tried to locate James Rud but his case worker will not tell me of his whereabouts. Perhaps Paul Bonacci could and would provide more information about his participation in the Jordan, Minnesota case. Several people over the years have suggested I may have drawn the wrong conclusions by accepting police reports. Some people have told me some children were murdered in Jordan. All help appreciated.

**Date:** Feb 11, 2010

tomdubbe wrote:

Maybe this case won't get the usual cover-up. In my book, Nightmares and Secrets: The Real Story of the 1984 Child Sexual Abuse Scandal in Jordan Minnesota" I mention on page 194 John Decamp attacking Attorney General Skip Humphrey's 29 page report and the case being closed for insufficient evidence. DeCamp claims that Paul Bonacci visited Jordan and was specifically at the home of James Rud. Rud gave a 126 page confession in this case and was senteced to 40 years at the Moose Lake prison. He later recanted his confession. Recently he was released from prison and is out on some sort of supervised release. I have tried to locate James Rud but his case worker will not tell me of his whereabouts. Perhaps Paul Bonacci could and would provide more information about his participation in the Jordan, Minnesota case. Several people over the years have suggested I may have drawn the wrong conclusions by accepting police reports. Some people have told me some children were murdered in Jordan. All help appreciated.

http://info.doc.state.mn.us/publicviewer/Inmate.asp?OID=115262

this is the only info I can find. He is not listed on ANY state sex offender register.

**Date:** Feb 11, 2010

Dr Dubbe i have some information on the satanic cult that was in Jordan Minnesota ive researched them along time ago i can send you some information i will try to find it they were close to the satanic cult in Omaha

**Date:** Feb 16, 2010

It's not that simple. After all, why do these predators go after children? Manipulation is a big part. Going by this reasoning a lot of things will be missed just because it is not blatantly going against someones will, but the fact that the majority of the population is ignorant regarding things like the Franklin case shows their thinking has been shaped to quite a significant extent, and one would not be going against anothers will if they have influenced their opinion enough so that they in fact support the particular dysfunctional behavior. This is an intentionally general statement, because it applies across the board rather than just regarding sexual behavior.

The principle of doing no harm likely reminds many of the Hippocratic oath, and there's another example where it is not so clear cut. Obviously many types of therapies causes collateral damage, and of course this is justified because of the doctors expert opinion - but the fact is that may not be correct or even in the interest of the patient in some cases. The deeper common denominator is of course ones thinking regarding what harm is has been influenced, so that even though in reality there will be harm to the patient it has become acceptable in the mind of the patient.

Dorca the Just wrote:

What is harmful about lust is when it is used as an excuse to take someone, male or female, against their will.

-- Edited by tempguy on Tuesday 16th of February 2010 08:53:29 PM

**Login** · **Date:** Feb 28, 2010

From today's Jordan Independent. Read the 1985 Attorney General's story.

By Shannon Fiecke, Correspondant

James Rud, the only person to ever be convicted in the famous 1980s Jordan sex abuse scandal, was back in Scott County last week.

Rud, a confessed child molester who later recanted stories of widespread sex abuse in Jordan, is up for release, having serving two-thirds of his 40-year sentence.

Franklin Files

MN - Former police captain charged with sexually assaulting child

Song of Solomon 7:6-8 (NIV)

Rule 7: Law of Reverse Effect:

JamesRud back on trial