Jehovah's Witness and convicted pedophile Jonathan Kendrick is cornered by a reporter on ABC News
Jehovah’s Witness and convicted pedophile Jonathan Kendrick is cornered by a reporter on ABC News

The hits just keep on coming for Watchtower as the fallout from the 2012 Conti verdict continues to snowball.

In an astonishing ABC report, aired last night on Nightline, Candace Conti’s abuser Jonathan Kendrick was confronted on his own driveway and questioned about the case.

Though Kendrick angrily denied charges he abused Candace (which the police continue to investigate), the report told the full story of how Candace only came to pursue her civil case against Watchtower after learning of his conviction for abusing another girl in a different congregation – something Kendrick was also unwilling to discuss on camera.

The revealing report, put together by ABC co-anchor Dan Harris, featured interviews with both Candace and her lawyer Rick Simons. The attempted interview with Kendrick was cut short only after Kendrick’s wife, who threatened to call the police on the news team, could only yell “He paid for that crime!” when asked about Kendrick’s abuse of her own seven-year-old granddaughter.

In addition to highlighting the child abuse issue, the report also touched on the doomsday element of Watchtower theology. “Everybody outside of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are pretty much walking dead,” Candace told Harris when explaining the concept of Armageddon. A visualization of the various apocalyptic magazine covers produced by Watchtower over the last few years helped to drive home this point.

Poised, confident and credible: Candace in her ABC interview
Poised, confident and credible: Candace in her ABC interview

It was explained that suspicion and feelings of condescension regarding outsiders contributed towards Candace keeping her abuse secret from authorities until she was older and had left the organization. And even then, it took her discovery of Kendrick’s next victims to finally move her to act.

“I felt really guilty for not doing anything so that this wouldn’t have happened to somebody else,” Candace told Harris in the report. You can’t help but wonder why victims of child abuse manage to feel guilty for the status quo in the organization while the Governing Body, the only ones with power to change things, seemingly feel no guilt at all – instead stubbornly clinging to their horrendous two witness rule.

“Who abuses children with two Witnesses?” asked a bemused Harris.

“Nobody does, and that was precisely the point,” was Candace’s poised reply.

Also interviewed was Rick Simons, who did a superb job of articulating the reason why outsiders should be alarmed by Watchtower’s negligence over child abuse.

Rick Simons superbly spelled out the threat posed to ordinary members of the public
Rick Simons superbly spelled out the threat posed to ordinary members of the public

“If ever there was a group that needs the sun to shine on them, it’s this one,” he said. “Because when your doorbell rings on Saturday morning, and your kid answers the door, you don’t want that guy to be a child molester.”

This point, which Simons reportedly used during the trial to great effect, brilliantly explains the scope of the problem. It is ordinary members of the public – not just Jehovah’s Witnesses – who are at risk from the Governing Body’s rules.

Watchtower apparently refused an interview, but sent ABC a scripture-strewn letter claiming they acknowledge the right of parents to report to governmental authorities.

As has repeatedly been argued on this website, it is one thing to not punish parents if they decide to go to the authorities, it is another thing entirely to always urge them to do so when they approach the body of elders with an accusation – a simple solution entirely absent from Watchtower literature and instructions to congregations.

A tinge of disappointment

I should be, and I am, thrilled at this ABC report, which (combined with the recent PBS report and investigative work by Trey Bundy) does a brilliant job of giving Watchtower the public notoriety it richly deserves after decades of mishandling child abuse.

But if you know me, you’ll know I’m rarely satisfied with partial victory in these sorts of matters. When the stakes are so high, I like to see monstrous bullies utterly vanquished without giving an inch.

I also remember precisely how it is to be an indoctrinated Witness who will leap on the tiniest crumb of a reason to excuse the organization and continue as though nothing has happened. This reason, for many Witnesses, will have been served up on a plate near the end of Dan Harris’ report:

“Since Candace’s verdict the church appears to have made some adjustments to its confidentiality policy when it comes to child abuse. But critics, including Candace, say it’s not enough.”

This is not the first time I have heard it suggested that Watchtower has significantly changed its policies in the wake of the Conti verdict. It is worth noting that Rick Simons made a very similar claim in an interview for the 2013 SFTLA Trial Lawyer awards:

“…and afterwards they changed their policy, they didn’t change as much as they should, and it’s gonna take a lot more lessons, but they did change it enough and they moved it in the right direction.”

These comments can be seen in this video at the 5:19 time marker…

When I first heard this suggestion by Simons I recall scratching my head, wondering precisely what changes in Watchtower’s policy subsequent to the Conti verdict could be remotely considered “enough.”

Some point to the fact that elders will sometimes allow accusations of child molestation to be heard even if there are not two witnesses on the sole condition that two or three witnesses can be found “to the same kind of wrongdoing.” (I was really proud of Candace in her appearance at the 2013 RNA conference when she brilliantly referred to this nuance in Watchtower’s rulebook as the “two victim rule.”) However, this was NOT a change introduced after the 2012 Conti verdict. The rule can be found on pages 71 and 72 of the Shepherd the Flock of God elder’s manual, published in 2010.

Given that the above interview was in 2013, it seems Simons may well have been referring to the infamous October 1, 2012 letter to elders, which if anything reinforced Watchtower’s child abuse policy. It (1) kept the two witness rule firmly in place, (2) insisted that elders rather than the police should investigate every accusation of child abuse, (3) left it to the branch office to decide whether or not a pedophile could be considered a predator, and (4) left the door open for pedophiles to become elders in the future provided a congregation is ignorant as to their crimes.

The only notable change introduced by the October 2012 letter that I could see (and I invite correction on this) was the hitherto unknown rule that, in some instances, elders would be allowed to inform parents in the congregation of the presence of a confirmed pedophile. This was explained in point 13 of the letter as follows (bold is as it appears in the letter; parentheses for clarification):

13. If the individual [a reproved or reinstated child molester] does not follow the above direction from the elders [to avoid children], or if the elders believe he may be a “predator,” the elders should immediately call the Service Department for assistance. A “predator” is one who clearly lacks self-control and by his actions provides reason to believe he will continue to prey on children. Not every individual who has sexually abused a child in the past is considered a “predator.” The branch office, not the local body of elders, determines whether an individual who has sexually abused children in the past will be considered a “predator.” If the branch office determines that an individual will be considered a “predator,” parents with minor children will need to be warned of the danger that exists so that they can protect their children. In such a case, and only after receiving direction and instructions from the Service Department, two elders should be assigned to meet with the parents of minor children in order to provide a warning. At the same time that parents are warned about an individual, it would be appropriate for the elders to inform the individual that parents in the congregation will be discreetly informed.

To read the full letter, click here.

Though any change is welcome that increases the likelihood of parents being warned of a pedophile, there are three glaring problems with the above rule.

Firstly, when the letter is read in context, the “predator” provision seems to apply only to reproved or reinstated pedophiles – not necessarily to those accused of child molesting (which makes sense when you factor in the two witness rule). Secondly, the predator provision is only to be called upon if there are concerns that the known pedophile is having contact with children. How are elders supposed to know every detail of a pedophile’s movements in the congregation? And thirdly, the letter insists it is for the branch office, NOT the local authorities, to decide whether parents should be warned that a predator is in their midst.

Watchtower's rules for dealing with child abuse continue to leave children vulnerable
Watchtower’s rules for dealing with child abuse continue to leave children vulnerable

In short, an elder can be convinced that someone in the congregation poses a threat to children, but without the green light from the branch office he has his hands tied.

It’s impossible to know for sure whether this is the loophole to which Simons and Harris refer, because they don’t offer clarification – but it seems likely.

Some may feel I am being unreasonable by picking up on this. After all, the ABC report was a brilliant and thorough expose, and it got the message about child abuse across loud and clear – thanks in no small measure to Simons’ incisive remarks about pedophiles on the doorstep. Between this and the PBS report, most news-savvy adults in America must now surely be aware that Jehovah’s Witnesses have a huge child abuse problem. But it is important to remember what is at stake here: the safety of children. Where this is concerned, there can be no compromises – no inch given.

ANY gap in Watchtower’s child abuse policy through which pedophiles can exploit children, no matter how narrow, is a gap too many. And by no conceivable stretch can the word “enough” be used to describe a policy that still regards the wicked act of child molestation as a “sin” first and foremost, and a crime by coincidence.

In summary, I am overjoyed at this seemingly unrelenting wave of media attention that is giving Watchtower and its cloistered Governing Body the battering it deserves. The likes of Barbara Anderson have worked tirelessly over the past two decades to keep the pressure on, and pave the way for this much-needed exposure.

But there is still much work to be done, and I’m sure Barbara would join me in saying the time for lighting the cigar is when every last child is reasonably out of harm’s way.

 

new-cedars-signature2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Further reading…

81 thoughts on “Kendrick cornered by reporter as ABC News shines spotlight on Watchtower’s child abuse record

  • March 15, 2015 at 3:13 pm
    Permalink

    @ Big D

    Love the Battle of Britain analogy. “Beware the Hun in the sun!”

    • March 15, 2015 at 6:36 pm
      Permalink

      Tallyho mate!

  • March 15, 2015 at 3:38 pm
    Permalink

    In some Middle Eastern countries, there are Religious Police who go around enforcing their stupid religious “laws”. I think we should create our own kind of “religious police”, kind of the opposite, a branch of the police which targets abuses and crimes that occur under the “umbrella” of religion and cults. I mean, there are already so many subdivisions in local law enforcement, as well as federal (FBI), i.e. Fraud Squad, Internet Crime, Special Victims Unit, Organized Crime Unit, Counter-terrorism Unit, etc. With the alarming rise in cults, and the inevitable associated abuses, not to mention the already established “respectable” “religions”, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, why not establish a Religions Unit or Cults Unit, with special powers? They could cut through all the bulls**t and Red Tape. Special legal dispensations and “loopholes” could be enacted just for them. It’s not like this kind of thing has not already been done. Torture is not exactly “legal,” but in pursuing the global “War on Terror,” they easily found a way around that little glitch. Governments spying on their own citizens. Not cool. Found a way around that. I guess where there’s a will, there’s a way.

  • March 15, 2015 at 3:55 pm
    Permalink

    I remember back in the day, people used to be annoyed, and complain, about witnesses coming to their door. Now all I hear is, “I don’t have a problem with it. After all, it’s a part of their religion.” What happened? When did it become cool to disturb people on their Saturday mornings??? It’s like a fog slowly rolled in.
    Maybe it has something to do with the increased focus on terrorism since 9/11. Compared to those religious wackos, Jehovah’s Witlesses don’t LOOK so bad. They must love it. It’s great PR for them!!!

  • March 15, 2015 at 4:52 pm
    Permalink

    The word paedophile is bad every time when justly applied
    to an offender, but the word “Apostate is not.

    A man revered by millions, Jesus, was histories, foremost
    apostate and died a cruel death because of it.

    He taught a different message. Rigidly sticking to rules and
    regulations was inferior to showing qualities like mercy, love,
    empathy.

    Also stressed was that nobody was above another everyone
    stood on their own merits, it was a level playing field.

    Imagine going to a JW, meeting and saying, shunning is
    unloving and causes emotional damage and sometimes suicide.
    Or mercy supersedes sacrifice in the case of one needing a blood
    transfusion, and that your judgement is just as valid as that of any
    elder or gov, body.

    100 to 1 you’d get the pharisaical treatment. Fearing their authority
    was being threatened, you’d be labelled as an ignorant accursed
    mentally diseased, “Apostate”. John 7/ 44–49.

    • March 16, 2015 at 12:01 am
      Permalink

      @Ted. I couldn’t agree more with your comments above .! Those words should be NAILED on EVERY KINGDOM HALL DOOR!! Now that’s a GOOD IDEA!!
      ANY VOLUNTEERS???

    • March 17, 2015 at 8:07 pm
      Permalink

      Simply awesome comment

    • March 18, 2015 at 5:37 pm
      Permalink

      @ Ted. Wonderful, wise words. Every human being’s life is as equal (and numinous) and individual as every other’s. The status quo is changing for this punitive ‘faith system’ of WT (since the word ‘religion’ is too loaded): respect to all — all of us, feeling, thinking and connecting to others in life (no ‘the truth’, no ‘the world’, no ‘wicked system’); whether we are of a ‘religion/faith system’ or not, ever have been, or ever will be.

  • March 16, 2015 at 12:30 am
    Permalink

    @Ted . Nail your comments about LOVE,JUSTICE &MERCY to Every Kingdom Hall Door like Martin Luther & his 95 Theses against Clerical ABUSES !! A
    Bit like Governing Body & Elder Abuse in regards to CHILD ABUSE POLICIES & SHUNNING!!!
    What is so EVIL not even to text or Email family members if they Disagree with Governing Body policies or Doctrines . WELL JESUS Spoke to even the Wicked & Evil PHARSISEEs & Saducees on many , many occasions even though he knew their hearts were Wicked & were plotting to kill him!!

  • March 16, 2015 at 1:32 am
    Permalink

    @DAC, and if someone doubts the existence of Satan…?

    *** w11 9/1 p. 3 Is There Someone Behind All Evil? ***
    “I SHOOK hands with the devil.” So said the commander of the United Nations forces in Rwanda, reflecting on their failure to stop the genocide in that land during 1994. Commenting on the unbelievable savagery at that time, another observer stated: “If someone still dares to deny Satan, meet me at a mass grave in Rwanda.” Are such atrocities really the work of the Devil?

    I am afraid the Bible has become so weak to convince some people of the existence of Satan that we are using supplementary evidences sometimes foolish and childish…

  • March 16, 2015 at 9:08 am
    Permalink

    Big Jim,

    Sir, you are an insulting bigot.

    How dare you assume that the posters on this site are doing nothing about the child abuse issue! That is going too far, sir.

    Your idiotic call for the banning of religion would result in the deaths of millions, and instigate a war that would last for decades, if not forever.

    Neal Krouni may decide to humour your delusions, I do not.

    Your posts so far on this site have been utterly useless in helping anyone at all. You may just as wel not bothered to comment at all.

    You claim to have attended seminary school, and yet your debating skills are nonexistant. You ask people to join you in ill thought out crusades that would not accomplish what you seek. It is no wonder that you fail to get any takers.

    I am genuinely sorry if you were the victim of abuse. I would suggest that you seek professional help and desist from insulting people who ARE doing something about the child abuse scandal, and the other abuses, in the WTBTS.

    As your are a Christian, I would encourage you to review your comments in light of Galatians 5:22,23.

    We are all deeply moved by the plight of the victims of paedophilia in the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We all do what we can to help to put a stop to this.

    Instead of berating us, why don’t you, as a minister of God, offer us support and your blessing?

    I agree that the TAX STATUSES of all religions does need to be addressed. We need to debate just what level of tax relief religion should get, and vigorously chase any money owed to the State. That is far more obtainable than the banning of all religion!!!!

    As an atheist, I would welcome a time when religion has come to its end. I just don’t want to see innocent people killed in a brutal war, which would be the result of even attempting to ban all relgion.

    If Humanity ever becomes wholly secular, it will be through a long process of education and slow social change. It may well be that religion will never be fully over.

    Peace be with you, Excelsior!

    • March 17, 2015 at 1:42 am
      Permalink

      Excelsior,
      I love this comment of yours… “I just don’t want to see innocent people killed in a brutal war, which would be the result of even attempting to ban all relgion”

      Unfortunately, Jehovah’s Witnesses have a totally different ideas as they support and preach that…

      *** w12 6/15 p. 18 par. 17 Jehovah Reveals What “Must Shortly Take Place” ***
      17 False religion, however, will not just fade away. The harlot will remain a potent force, attempting to bend kings to her will until God plants an idea in the hearts of those in power. (Read Revelation 17:16, 17.) Soon Jehovah will cause the political elements of Satan’s system, as represented by the United Nations, to attack false religion. They will destroy her influence and devastate her riches. Such an event may have seemed unlikely just decades ago. Today, the harlot teeters on the back of the scarlet-colored beast. Even so, she will not slip slowly from her seat. Her tumble will be sudden and violent.—Rev. 18:7, 8, 15-19.

      Here, they imply a brutal ban of all religions by the UN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • March 16, 2015 at 10:29 am
    Permalink

    Here is a quick update on the appeal of the Candace Conti judgment filed by The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. and the Fremont California Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, North Unit:

    09/25/2012: Notice of appeal lodged/received.

    Another 75 dates appear until the latest entry of 03/05/2015.

    After 30 months, the Watchtower’s legal strategy appears to be focused on dragging this appeal out as long as possible.

    It remains to be seen if the court will find the Watchtower’s appeal to be frivolous and require that interest be added onto the cost of the original judgment to cover the time taken for the appeal.

    http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2025979&doc_no=A136641

  • March 16, 2015 at 10:58 am
    Permalink

    I viewed the program in its entirety. ABC did an excellent job in their investigative reporting of the child abuse policies & of Candice Conti. This 2 witness rule is not only an absurdity it’s also an insult, disrespectfull & unjust . Any individual that preys on innocent children in order to satisfy their prevented desires will most assuredly not be caught due to the 2 witness rule. The Governing Body needs to give relief to these innocent victims & not appeal cases that they have lost due to their own negligence

  • March 16, 2015 at 7:28 pm
    Permalink

    Watchtower leaders has created a child policy – victim rule that’s biting them in the ass. For remaining silence – don’t ask, don’t tell, Is now evolving into 3 categories:

    1). Wheat and weeds (WT) growing together

    2). Evil class (WT)

    3). WT leaders and congo elders are accountable for our actions, a very serious tread to be in 2015.

    The message from the gospel today is basic and straight forward. It is about trusting God to sort things out in the end and not being too quick ourselves to try to sort the good from the bad. That is partly because we are likely to make some judgements that are not very good when we try to discern who is on the Lord’s side, and partly because even if we can see clearly who belongs and who might be an intruder we are likely to damage others in our attempts to tidy up the Lord’s field. It was the damage we are likely to do to others in the process which was given by the landowner in the parable as the reason for not intervening to pull out the weeds.

    There must have been a good many people amongst the followers of Jesus both before and after his death and resurrection who did not feel very comfortable with some of the company they had to keep. The disciples tried on occasions to drive away those people they thought were unworthy who were trying to reach Jesus. They also tended to think that a final judgement should be made there and then when things did not go as they ought. For example, they asked Jesus about calling down fire from heaven on villages which would not receive them Certainly, the company they kept because they were with Jesus was a cause for criticism from the community leaders of the time.

    When they saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
    Some of these experiences must have been recalled often when in the early church questions arose about whether of some who were amongst them really belonged. But it was not quite that simple. They knew that a general doctrine of inclusiveness regardless of what people did or believed is not Christian teaching. It did matter what people believed and how they lived. The members of the fellowship were supposed to have repented of their old ways and to be trying to live a new life with Christ.

    It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Should you not rather have mourned, so that he who has done this would have been removed from among you?
    It was not an easy question and it never is, this question of tolerance and inclusiveness where it appears to encourage evil and falsehood. Much the same applied to teachers of the way of Christ. Some were true to him and some were not, and it must have been quite difficult for small groups of believers not in close touch with other congregations to work out who were the true apostles of Christ.

    “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.

    They were not silly enough to imagine that sincerity was enough or that each could follow their own inclinations. Consumer religion or making up your own smorgasbord of spirituality was not “all the go” then. Truth and unity mattered. The parable about the wheat and the weeds.

    Let them grow together until the harvest

    As any gardener will know, the weeds seem to come from nowhere. You plant good pure seed and it is as if some enemy had stolen in at night and planted weeds, for there they are growing amongst the plants you want as if they have every right to be there. If you have everything nicely lined up in rows it is not so very difficult to get in there with a hoe or just to pull them out. Human life is usually not so well ordered. In a farmer’s field of wheat or some other crop that is broadly dispersed, as human beings tend to be, it is not so easy. In fact farmers don’t generally try to remove weeds from crops of that kind. It must have been so at time Jesus told the story too.

    And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?’ He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The slaves said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he replied, ‘No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them. —
    Later the explanation is given that the wheat is the children of God and the weeds the children of the evil one. They are to be allowed to grow together.

    Let both of them grow together until the harvest;
    It is worth taking notice that the word translated “weeds” in modern versions, and “tares” in the KJV actually refers to a plant “darnel” that looks like wheat. In the story as Jesus told it he was contrasting a false grain with a true grain. It was a matter of what the plant could produce. As he said on a number of occasions, it is by their fruits you will know them; sometimes it is hard to tell them apart while they are growing in the field.

    In the same way, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
    They would be sorted out later.

    The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will collect out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers.
    We do not have here a laissez fare doctrine of live and let live as if all may do as they please and it does not matter. In the long run, in the end, it will be clear that there is a difference between the wheat and the weeds.

    Some belief in a final judgement is an important part of the faith in which a person can trust God to work things out. There are many ways in which it can be expressed, but if you have no such belief, you will be much more inclined to try to do the Lord’s work here and now. If you cannot trust God to bring in the kingdom you might well think it is your job to sort out the wheat from the weeds.

    Many a church and many a community has been destroyed by such a lack of faith leading to a self righteous and judgmental assumption of responsibility. There is today a powerful modern sectarian movement of this kind. People leave congregations or cause a split because they judge that some fellow members do not belong to the Lord. They are wrong. They might be right to challenge false teaching and lack of commitment, but they wrong are to separate. And they are wrong to try to separate others into groups according to their final destiny in the judgement of God – only God can do that.

    There is some qualification, however, to that general principle of constraint and waiting for God to act. “Do not be mismatched with unbelievers” and to separate from those who worshipped idols might apply. That was in a situation in which the differences were plain and obvious to all on both sides and there was no mistaking who was who. The survival of the church in a particular place might be at risk if a separate identity is not secured for believers. The question there was not to decide who belonged, but what to do in a given relationship with those who defined themselves as not belonging to the fellowship of believers. That is very different from overeagerness to make definitions clear when they are not. “Drive out the wicked person from among you.” Again it is different, that is in a case of notorious wrong doing that was obvious to all, to unbelievers as well as believers. It was not a question of difficulty in discerning who were members of the family, but of discipline within the family.

    There is irony too in this, in that people who are keen to separate the true disciples from the false think they are acting in faith to do the Lord’s work when in fact they are demonstrating a lack of faith. It is a kind of self indulgence. In their eagerness to assume final authority for themselves they are no better than the modern libertarians who imagine that in end they need not fear being accountable to anyone.

    I am sure I do not need to apply this in detail to the church today. Its meaning is obvious. It calls into question the narrow sectarian attitudes of those who demand action or threaten to walk away when they see in a fellowship any who they believe, perhaps for good reason, not to be true Christians. It equally calls into question the attitudes of any who do not believe in a final judgement, and sadly that has been thought the only modern alternative. You do not have to hold a primitive view of the world to believe that in God’s own way, in his time or beyond time, evil will be banished and the faithful will receive their just reward. It takes a highly selective reading of the New Testament not to see that Jesus taught clearly that people would be accountable to God, and at a time of God’s choosing. The point of the parable is that we should leave it to him.

  • March 18, 2015 at 6:36 am
    Permalink

    Minion,

    You failed to mention the superior authorities in your theological treatese. Romans 13

    They are there to catch paedophiles, murderers, rapists, extortioners etc etc and are there by God’s decree.

    As an atheist, I found some of your comments mildly offensive.

    I have no desire to “wait on JEHOVAH” or any other deity. None of them can be proven to exist, and therefore it IS up to us to make the world a better place.

    Indeed, the good Christian is commanded to make the world a better place, by caring for those around them Matthew 25, sheep and goats parable.

    I found your comment about the weeds illustration very interesting. I think that you are right in your analysis there.

    The Apostle Paul commanded that the Corinthean Man who had married his own mother be expelled. He didn’t day the same for those who disagreed with him on theological grounds. I believe it was a copper smith mentioned in Timothy somewhere.

    I cannot and will not stop intervening on issues that are criminal like child abuse. I will, however, tolerate those of faith, as long as they obey the law as any citizen should.

    Thanks for an interesting comment.

    Peace be with you, Excelsior!

  • March 24, 2015 at 1:17 pm
    Permalink
  • April 2, 2015 at 1:00 pm
    Permalink

    I had one comment about the following:

    If the branch office determines that an individual will be considered a “predator,” parents with minor children will need to be warned of the danger that exists so that they can protect their children. In such a case, and only after receiving direction and instructions from the Service Department, two elders should be assigned to meet with the parents of minor children in order to provide a warning. At the same time that parents are warned about an individual, it would be appropriate for the elders to inform the individual that parents in the congregation will be discreetly informed.”

    Notice it says: “an individual” Nowhere does it say they will name the individual. They will simply be told that there is a predator in the congregation. Nice going. Now parents will look at everyone with suspicion and most likely won’t focus on the real culprit. Meanwhile, the abuser still gets a free pass. Still goes door to door preaching. And could still be getting up on the platform to read, give talks an pray. Why would anyone think it is who it is? Under the guise of confidentiality the secret will be kept. Victims will continue to be told to be quiet not even warning other family members without the risk of being reprimanded and possibly ejected.

    • April 3, 2015 at 4:14 am
      Permalink

      Nowhere does it say they will name the individual, but also nowhere does it say that the elders must not name the individual to those parents. So either way is speculation?

  • April 2, 2015 at 7:41 pm
    Permalink

    I guess we reap what we sow.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: